LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PRINCETON,  N.  J 


PRESENTED  BY 


Princeton  Universit}'  Library 


BL  240  .M23  1891 
MacQueary ,  Howard . 
The  evolution  of  man  and 
Christianity 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  MAS 
AND  CHRISTIANITY 


THE 


'vy- 


.^ 


EVOLUTION  OF  MA 


AND 


CHRISTIANITY 


BY    THB^ 

Rev.  HOWARD   MAC  QUEARY 


NEW  EDITION,   REVISED  AND  ENLARGED 


NEW   YORK 
D.    APPLETON    AND    COMPANY 

1891 


Copyright,  1890,  1891, 
Bt  D.  APPLETON  AND  COMPANY. 


TO  PROF.  JOSEPH  LB  CONTE,  LL.  D., 

BERKELEY,  CAL. 

My  Dear  Sir  : 

This  book,  the  first-fruits  of  my  pen,  I  dedicate  to  you,  not 
simply  because  I  would  associate  my  name  with  that  of  one  so  emi- 
nent for  piety  and  learning  as  yourself,  nor  because  I  ivoidd  hold 
you  responsible  for  any  opinion  it  contains,  but  rather  because  I 
would  fain  express  my  heart- felt  appreciation  of  the  unfailing  sym- 
pathy and  invaluable  assistance  I  received  from  yo.u  during  the  long, 
dark  period  of  mental  and  spiritual  struggle  which  resulted  in  my 
emancipation  from  the  thralldom  of  a  crude  and  irrational  Tradi- 
tionalism. 

Earnestly  trusting  that  this  humble  effort  may  be  the  means  of 
promoting  the  great  cause  we  have  at  heart — the  cause  of  truth — I 
am,  with  deep  respect, 

Very  Cordially  Yours, 

HOWARD  MACQUEARY. 

Canton,  Ohio,  Oct.  1889. 


PEEFACE   TO   THE   SECOND  EDITION". 


The  criticisms  of  this  book  have,  of  course,  been  both 
favorable  and  unfavorable  ;  but  the  favorable,  I  am  glad 
to  be  able  to  say,  have  greatly  outnumbered  the  unfavor- 
able notices.  The  secular  press — especially  the  Boston 
press — has,  with  few  exceptions,  been  not  only  just  but 
most  flattering  in  its  notices  of  the  book  ;  the  religious 
press,  as  was  anticipated,  has  not  only  denounced  the 
book  as  "  dangerous,"  but  it  has  greatly  misrepresented 
its  teaching.  Three  notable  exceptions  are  "AH  Souls' 
Monthly,"  the  parish  paper  of  Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton's 
church  ;  the  "Wyoming  and  Idaho  Mission,"  the  diocesan 
paper  of  that  jurisdiction  ;  and  the  "Christian  Register," 
of  Boston,  all  of  which  have  been  very  kind  and  fair  in 
their  notices  of  the  book.  Of  course,  the  fact  that  the 
last-named  paper  is  a  Unitarian  organ  will,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  Trinitarians,  weaken  the  weight  and  influence  of 
its  estimate;  but  it  is  a  great  pity  that  the  Episcopal 
Church  has  no  paper  of  the  same  depth  and  breadth  of 
view  and  Christian  charity  as  the  "Register."  To  these 
and  the  secular  papers,  as  well  as  to  individuals  who  have 
kindly  noticed  this  book,  I  would  express  my  sincere  grati- 
tude. To  the  unjust  criticisms  and  misrepresentations  of 
other  papers  I  now  make  the  following  answers  : 

First.  It  has  been  repeatedly  asserted  that  I  reject 
the  Incarnation  or  the  Divinity  of  Christ.     This  is  false. 


viii     EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 

1  accept  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  as  set 
forth  in  our  Second  Article  of  Religion.  As  more  fully 
explained  in  the  chapter  on  Miracles,  the  birth  and  char- 
act, r  of  our  Lord  arc  two  distinct  questions,  and  one 
may  accept  His  divinity  even  if  he  believe  that  He  had 
an  earthly  father— Joseph.  Further:  One  may  believe 
His  birth  to  have  been  truly  miraculous— that  is,  the 
result  of  a  special  operation  of  the  Divine  Will— and 
vet  hold  that  this  birth  occurred  along  the  lines  of 
natural  generation.  In  other  words,  the  divinity  of 
Chrisi  depends  upon  the  essential  relation  of  the  hu- 
man and  divine  spiritual  elements  in  Him,  not  upon 
the  mode  of  His  birth.  He  may  have  been  born 
in  the  ordinary  way,  while  His  (human)  spirit  was 
specially  begotten  of  "God  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord 
and  Giver  of  Life,"  working  through  the  media  of  a 
man  and  woman.  At  any  rate,  I  believe  that  in  Christ 
dwelt  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  (Col.,  ii,  9), 
which  influx  of  Deity  into  Humanity  was  due  to  a  special 
operation  of  God's  Will  acting  along  the  line  of  ordinary 
generation. 

It  has  also  been  asserted  that  I  reject  the  resurrection 
of  Christ.  I  do  attach  little  importance  to  the  details  of 
His  bodily  resurrection  as  given  in  the  Gospels,  because  I 
consider  these  documents  of  too  uncertain  authorship  to 
allow  of  attaching  much  importance  to  their  details  ;  but 
I  accept  the  resurrection  or  manifestation  of  Christ  after 
death  in  a  "spiritual  body,"  as  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  in 
First  Corinthians,  xv  ;  and  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  as  set  forth  in  her  burial  service. 

Second.  It  has  been  said  that  I  "  accept  the  evolu- 
tion of  man,  body  and  soul,  from  the  lower  animals,  but 
decline  to  give  my  reasons  for  this  acceptance."  This, 
also,  is  talc  The  whole  of  Chapters  II  and  III  of 
Part  I— fifty  of  the  one  hundred  pages  devoted  to  man's 


PREFACE  TO   THE  SECOND  EDITION.  ix 

origin — are  a  summary  of  the  arguments  based  on  the 
facts  of  paleontology,  morphology,  variability,  and  em- 
bryology, which  prove  man's  origin  from  a  lower  animal 
form,  and  disprove  the  popular  theological  view  of  his 
origin. 

The  only  shadow  of  justification  which  can  be  offered 
for  this  criticism  is  my  statement,  at  the  end  of  Chap- 
ter II,  that,  for  want  of  space  and  its  non-necessity, 
I  could  not  give  the  facts  and  reasons  proving  man's 
spiritual  evolution  as  I  had  done  to  show  his  physical 
development.  But  I  refer  to  Spencer's  "  Psychology  " 
and  Komanes's  "  Mental  Evolution  "  for  proofs  of  the 
derivative  origin  of  man's  spirit.  The  mistake  I  made 
was  in  supposing  that  critics  of  the  book  would  be  can- 
did enough  to  admit  that  these  facts  and  authorities 
could  not  be  lightly  set  aside. 

Third.  It  has  been  said  that  I  accept  the  results  of 
"destructive  criticism"  at  second  hand,  and  without 
any  reconstructive  thought  of  my  own.  This,  too,  is 
false.  A  reference  to  the  introductory  chapter  of  Part 
II,  on  the  Documents,  will  show  that  I  have  studied  the 
early  Christian  literature  itself,  and  quote  directly  from 
the  "Fathers,"  and  urge  my  readers  to  use  all  modern 
writers  "  simply  as  guides  to  the  discovery  of  the  facts  for 
themselves."  A  comparison,  too,  of  my  conclusions  with 
those  of  the  so-called  "destructive  critics"  will  show 
sufficient  divergence  in  our  views  to  justify  my  claim  to 
independent  thought  of  my  own.  To  mention  only  one 
or  two  points  of  difference  :  I  accept  ten  of  the  Epistles 
ascribed  to  St.  Paul  as  genuine  works  of  the  apostle  ; 
whereas,  the  radical  skeptics  accept  only  four  or  six.  I 
believe  in  and  defend  the  miraculous,  albeit  in  a  more 
refined  and  spiritual  form  than  popular  theology  does  ; 
whereas,  the  radical  critics  (Strauss,  Eenan,  Wellhausen, 
etc.)  reject  miracles  in  toto.     I  refer  to  as  many  books 


X         EVOLUTION"  OF  MAN  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 

on  the  traditional  as  on  the   "  destructive  "  side  of  the 
questions  discussed. 

iin  :  It  has  been  said  that  I  am  not  learned  or 
original.  I  make  no  pretensions  to  either  erudition  or 
originality.     The  book  was  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive, 

in  of  my  own  knowledge,  but  it  was  designed  simply 
as  a  popular  summary  of  scientifico-theological  opin- 
ions from  the  evolution  point  of  view  ;  and  hence,  by  its 
vi tv  nature,  it  could  not  be  either  exhaustive  or  original. 
The  following  words  from  Emerson's  essay  on  "  Quotation 
and  Originality  "  are  instructive  :  "Ina  large  sense,  one 
would  say  there  is  no  pure  originality.  All  minds  quote. 
Old  and  new  make  the  warp  and  woof  of  every  moment. 
AW1  quote  not  only  books  and  proverbs,  but  arts,  sciences, 
religion,  customs,  and  laws ;  nay,  we  quote  temples  and 
houses,  tables  and  chairs,  by  imitation.  There  is  imita- 
tion, model,  and  suggestion  to  the  very  archangels,  if  we 
knew  their  history."  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  an  archangel 
(many  seem  to  consider  me  an  arch-fiend  rather  !),  and 
hence  quotation  and  imitation  on  my  part  are  surely  par- 
donable. It  is  something  to  be  able  to  appreciate  the 
brilliant  thoughts  of  others  ;  and  if  this  little  volume 
points  to  the  gems  of  philosophical  thought  which  lie 
imbedded  in  the  Spencerian  system  and  in  German  Bibli- 
cal criticism,  it  will  have  accomplished  its  purpose.  It 
should  be  remembered  that  the  distinctive  feature  of 
"orthodox  theology"  itself  is  not  originality. 

The  function  of  criticism  is  twofold— to  specify  er- 
rors and  to  suggest  truth.  The  critic  owes  something  to 
the  author  reviewed,  and  the  public  that  reads  his  criti- 

i.  He  should  protect  the  latter  as  far  as  possible 
from  errors,  and  help  the  former  to  correct  them.  Un- 
fortunately, in  the  present  case  neither  has  been  done 
except  in  one  or  two  instances;  and  my  correction  of 
these  mistakes  shows  my  readiness  to  accept  fair  criti- 


PREFACE  TO   THE  SECOND  EDITION.  xi 

cism.  In  the  chapter  on  "Inspiration,"  it  was  pointed 
out,  I  apparently  questioned  the  infallibility  of  our  Lord. 
This  I  did  not  intend  to  do,  as  the  context  would  show 
to  a  thoughtful,  unprejudiced  reader.  I  simply  meant 
that,  owing  to  the  uncertain  authorship  of  the  Gospels, 
which  contain  all  that  we  know  of  His  teaching,  we  could 
not  prove  His  absolute  infallibility.  For  my  own  part,  I 
accept  this,  because  He  seems  to  me,  despite  the  uncertain 
authorship  of  the  Gospels,  the  final  goal  of  spiritual 
evolution — the  Perfect  Man  ;  but  it  would  be  difficult  to 
prove  this  fact  to  many  even  amorg  professing  Christians 
— some  Unitarians,  for  instance.  My  views  of  Christ's 
birth  and  resurrection  have  been  abundantly  denounced, 
but  not  so  criticised  as  to  enable  me  to  correct  the  errors 
which  the  critics  say  they  contain.  Still,  I  have  rewritten 
those  views,  and,  while  I  have  not  altered  them,  I  have 
stated  them  more  clearly  and  brought  out  the  miraculous 
features  of  the  events  more  strongly  and  distinctly.  My 
aim  in  writing  this  book,  especially  the  chapter  on  mira- 
cles, was  to  show  that  the  substance  of  the  Gospels  and  the 
articles  of  the  Christian  creed  might  be  accepted  even  if,  as 
the  radical  critics  and  skeptics  claim,  certain  details  must 
be  given  up.  But  my  critics,  instead  of  giving  me  credit 
for  this  conservative  aim,  have  abundantly  denounced  my 
so-called  "attack  "  on  the  faith,  and  have  emphasized  the 
negative  part  of  my  work — the  concessions  I  made  to  the 
skeptics  in  order  to  save  the  substance  of  the  truth — to  the 
neglect  of  the  conservative  "  orthodox  "  part  of  my  views. 
Indeed,  as  stated  above,  they  have  greatly  misrepresented 
those  views,  even  accusing  me  of  rejecting  the  Incarna- 
tion and  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  in  fact  all  miracles. 
But  it  is  hoped  that  this  further  explanation  and  defense 
will  be  satisfactory.  The  difficulty  was,  to  be  popular, 
succinct,  and  clear,  all  at  once.  It  would  require  sev- 
eral volumes  to  elaborate  what  is   here  condensed  into 


Ml 


EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


four  hundred  small  pages;  and  yet  such  elaboration 
would  be  necessary,  to  make  the  positions  taken  clear  to 
all  persons.  Hence  I  urge  readers  of  the  book  to  consult 
the  w<»rk-  Referred  to,  if  they  are  unacquainted  with 
them,  ere  they  criticise  my  views.  This,  of  course,  was 
addressed  to  young  theologians,  who  are  disposed  to  be 
even  more  dogmatic  and  "cock-sure"  on  profound  prob- 
lems than  older  and  more  learned  people  are.  I  did  not 
presume  to  suggest  a  course  of  reading  to  editors  of 
••  religions  newspapers,"  much  less  to  professional  critics, 
and  I  earnestly  hope  that  they  will  not  be  offended  by 
advice  which  was  never  intended  for  them. 

The  most  serious  defect,  however,  of  the  criticisms 
of  the  book  is  that  many  have  not  asked,  Are  the  opinions 
true  ?  but  they  have  rather  asked,  Are  they  compatible 
with  the  acceptance  of  the  Creeds  and  Articles  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  ?  In  other  words,  the  book  has  been 
looked  at  mainly  from  an  ecclesiastical,  not  from  a  scien- 
tific or  philosophic  point  of  view,  and  even  the  ecclesias- 
ticism  of  the  preface  to  the  first  edition  has  not  been  fairly 
considered.  In  that  preface  I  contend  that  the  Episcopal 
Church,  being  a  Protestant  Church,  allows  liberty  of 
thought  and  speech — accepts  the  Bible  as  her  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  and  holds  that  her  Creeds  and  Arti- 
cles must  be  interpreted  by  the  Scriptures,  not  vice  versa  ; 
and,  further,  that  the  Bible  should  be  interpreted  by 
facts  and  reasons  as  they  appear  to  the  individual.  This 
contention  has  not  been  refuted,  and  may  be  more  fully 
proved  than  it  was  in  the  preface  to  the  first  edition. 
Thus,  the  second  ordination  vow  asserts,  with  the  Sixth 
Article,  that  the  "Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  doctrine 
required  as  necessary  for  eternal  salvation."  The  third 
vow,  which  is  the  one  so  often  appealed  to  and  misinter- 
preted, asks  the  candidate,  "Will  you  then  give  your 
faithful  diligence,  always  so  to  minister  the  doctrine  and 


PREFACE  TO    TEE  SECOND  EDITION.        xiii 

sacraments,  and  the  discipline  of  Christ,  as  the  Lord 
hath  commanded,  and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the 
same  ?  "  This  is  understood  by  many  to  mean  that  the 
minister  promises  to  accept  the  Creeds  and  Articles  of 
"  this  Church''  as  Jinal ;  but  I  maintain  that  "  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ  as  this  Church  hath  received  the  same  "  is 
that  "  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation,"  and  that  each  one  is  at  liberty — nay,  is  in 
duty  bound — to  interpret  the  Bible  by  facts  and  reasons 
as  he  understands  them.  The  word  "  then  "  in  this  vow 
refers  ns  back  to  the  second  vow,  and  shows  that  the  doc- 
trine there  stated  is  "the  doctrine  of  this  Church."  And 
what  is  the  doctrine  there  stated  ?  That  the  Bible  is  our 
rule  of  faith.  If  this  were  not  the  meaning  of  the  third 
vow,  it  would  occupy  the  place  in  the  service  of  the 
second  vow,  and  instead  of  being  asked,  "Are  you 
persuaded  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  doc- 
trine ? "  the  candidate  would  be  asked,  Are  you  per- 
suaded that  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  Creeds  and  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles  contain  all  doctrine  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  will  you  interpret  the  Bible  by  these  for- 
mulas and  teach  them  to  the  people  committed  to  your 
charge  ?  But,  no  ;  in  the  fourth  vow  he  promises  to 
"  banish  and  drive  away  from  the  Church  all  erroneous  and 
strange  doctrines  contrary  to  " — the  Creeds  and  Articles  ? 
no!  but  contrary  to — "Cod's  Word."  In  the  fifth  vow 
he  promises  to  "be  diligent  in  prayers,  and  in  reading 
Holy  Scripture,  and  in  such  studies  as  help  to  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  same."  This  last  vow  distinctly  asserts  not 
only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  "  private  judgment." 
The  minister  is  to  use  all  diligence  to  ascertain  for  him- 
self what  are  the  essential  truths  of  Scripture,  not  of  the 
Creeds  and  Articles.  Really  it  is  most  remarkable  that 
it  should  be  necessary  to  say  all  this  about  the  Church 
which  was   the  mother  of  English   Protestantism,  and 


xiv       EYOLUTIOX  OF  MAX  AXD  CHRISTIANITY. 

which  bears  in  her  very  name  the  evidence  of  this  fact. 
It  is  still  more  remarkable  that  some  of   her  members 
should   assert    that,   while  the  Thirty-nine  Articles   are 
man-made  and  alterable  dogmas,  yet   her  creeds,  being 
the  products  of  the  first  General  Councils  of  the  Church 
(at  \ica-a.  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon)  are 
infallible  and  unchangeable.     This  contention  is  refuted 
by   Scripture,  reason,  history,  and   the  Articles  of  the 
Church.     The  idea  that  a  General  Council — or  a  council 
of  the  whole  Church — is  infallible,  rests  on  the  absurd  as- 
sumption that  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  depends 
upon  the  number  of  people  seeking  it  !     On  the  contrary, 
our  Lord  said,  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together 
in  His  name  there  He  will  be  (Matt.,  xviii,  20)  ;  nay, 
that  any  individual  who  would  enter  his  closet  and  pray 
to  the  Father  would  receive  the  Divine  blessing  (Matt., 
vi,  G).     This  shows  that  the  Holy  Spirit  influences  indi- 
viduals as  truly  as  He  does  masses  of  people.     But,  be  it 
observed,  it  is  not  said  that  He  makes  individuals  infalli- 
ble ;  and,  if  not,  how  can  general  assemblies  of  fallible  per- 
sons enunciate  infallible  truths  ?      Surely  the  whole   is 
not  greater  than  the  sum  of  its  parts  ;  and  if  the  separate 
units  of  a  General  Council  are  fallible — and  all  insist  upon 
this — theu  the  council  must  be  even  more  fallible.     This 
is  not  only  the  common-sense  view  of  this  matter,  but 
the  Articles  of  our  Church  express  precisely  this  opinion. 
The   Twenty-first   Article    says,    "Forasmuch   as    they 
[General  Councils]  be  an  assembly  of  men,  whereof  all 
be  not  governed  with  the  Spirit  and  Word  of  God,  they 
may  err,  and  sometimes  have  erred,  even  in  things  per- 
taining unto  God."     This  article  was  omitted  from  the 
Prayer  Book  by  the  American  revisers,  but  let  no  one 
thence  infer  that  the  American  Episcopal  Church  accepts 
the  infallibility  of   the  first   General   Councils,  for  the 
Prayer  Book  states  that  the  "other  Articles  "  settle  this 


PREFACE  TO   THE  SECOND  EDITION'.  Xv 

question.  Thus  the  Nineteenth  Article  says,  "  The 
Church  of  Jerusalem,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Rome 
[the  very  Churches  represented  in  the  first  General 
Councils]  have  erred,  not  only  in  their  living  and  manner 
of  ceremonies,  out  also  in  matters  of  faith"  Why  say 
more  ?  Is  it  not  evident  that  those  bishops  and  clergy 
who  have  denounced  me  as  a  violator  of  solemn  ordina- 
tion vows  are  themselves  condemned  by  the  Church  whose 
doctrines  they  profess  to  believe  and  defend  ?  If,  now,  it 
be  said  that  the  foregoing  theory  of  ecclesiastical  authority 
leads  logically  to  the  destruction  of  all  creeds  or  formulas, 
and  therefore  to  a  disorganization  of  the  Chruch,  I  reply  : 
1.  If  so,  I  am  not  responsible  for  it,  but  the  Reformers  who 
framed  our  Articles.  2.  This  is  not  so,  for  the  Republic 
exists  very  comfortably  under  a  Constitution  that  admits 
of  amendment,  and  why  can  not  the  Church  so  exist  ? 
Indeed,  common  sense  teaches  that  the  Church  should  be 
at  liberty  to  revise  her  articles  of  faith  from  time  to  time 
as  new  light  is  gained  ;  but  how  is  she  to  do  this  if  every 
one  who  proposes  either  an  interpretation  of  her  formulas 
different  from  that  commonly  accepted,  or  an  alteration 
in  those  formulas  is  forthwith  excommunicated '?  Surely 
if  we  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  we  profess  in  the 
Creed  ;  if  we  believe  that  He  will  be  with  the  Church — 
with  each  member  of  the  Church — to  the  end  of  time,  we 
must  admit  the  truth  of  this  view  of  the  Church.  At 
any  rate,  this  view  has  not  yet  been  refuted. 

The  real  reason  why  it  is  doubted,  and  the  semi- 
infallibility  of  the  Creeds  is  asserted,  is  that  these  Creeds 
have  been  accepted  for  centuries  by  the  majority  of  Chris- 
tians. But  those  who  think  that,  because  a  doctrine  has 
long  been  accepted  by  the  majority,  it  is  therefore  neces- 
sarily or  even  presumably  true,  should  remember  these 
facts  :  Christianity  itself  can  not  stand  this  test,  since 
the  followers  of  Zoroaster,  Buddha,  Confucius,  and  Mo- 


Wl 


E  VOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


hammed  far  outnumber  Christians.  Even  in  Christen- 
dom ;it  .»uc  lime  the  Divinity  of  Christ  was  rejected  by 
the  vast  majority  of  Christians,  and  then  it  was  Atha- 
nasius,  a  young  archdeacon,  against  the  world.  When 
Galileo,  Kepler,  Copernicus,  Newton,  and  Columbus  first 
published  their  views,  the  world  hooted  and  ridiculed. 
When  the  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  proclaimed 
their  great  doctrines,  they  were  denounced  and  persecuted 
by  the  majority;  and  had  Luther  submitted  to  the  dicta- 
tion of  the  Church,  or  to  numbers,  there  would  to-day  be 
no  Protestant  Church.  Every  departure  from  accepted 
opinions  of  any  kind  is  necessarily  inaugurated  by  a 
minority  if  not  by  one  individual,  and  hence  it  is  high 
time  to  have  done  with  an  appeal  to  what  the  majority 
believe  as  a  refutation  of  any  opinion.  All  this  is  said, 
not  because  the  writer  claims  originality,  much  less  be- 
cause he  classes  himself  with  the  great  men  referred  to — 
for  he  does  not  consider  himself  worthy  to  untie  their 
shoes — but  it  is  simply  a  citation  of  facts  in  order  to  refute 
a  superficial  but  powerful  notion. 

Finally,  it  has  been  said  that  I  stand  alone  in  the  Epis- 
copal Church.  To  a  well-informed  Episcopalian  such  an 
assertion  is  astonishing !  Has  not  this  Church  been  the 
home  of  those  great  liberal  theologians  and  devout  Chris- 
tians, Frederick  Denison  Maurice,  Charles  Kingsley,  Fred- 
erick W.  Eobertson,  Matthew  Arnold,  Frederick  W. 
Farrar,  Archbishop  Tait,  Dean  Stanley,  Dr.  Edwin  A. 
Abbott,  Alfred  Momerie,  H.  E.  Haweis,  Canon  Freman- 
tle,  Heber  Newton,  and  numerous  other  liberal-minded 
men,  who,  however  much  they  may  have  disagreed  on  un- 
essential points,  are  at  one  in  their  advocacy  of  the  free- 
dom I  claim  ?  Their  interpretations  of  Scripture  are 
essentially  the  same  in  principle.  In  particular,  Dr. 
Abbott,  Dr.  Newton,  and  Mr.  Haweis  hold  essentially 
my  views — or  rather  I  hold  theirs — on  the  authorship  and 


PREFACE  TO   THE  SECOND  EDITION.        xvii 

authority  of  the  books  of  the  Bible.    And  we  also  agree  in 
our  views  of  miracles.     Dr.  Abbott,  in  his  book  entitled 
"  The  Kernel  and  the  Husk"  (Roberts  Brothers,  Boston), 
rejects  the  Virgin-birth  and  accepts  the  spiritual  resurec- 
tion  of  Jesus.     Dr.   Newton  has   not  expressed   himself 
publicly  on  the  birth,  but  in  a  sermon  on  "  Robert  Els- 
mere,"  published  in  "All  Souls' Monthly  "  for  December, 
1888,  he  accepts  the  spiritual  resurrection  of  our  Lord. 
Rev.  Mr.  Haweis,  in  his  "  Picture  of  Jesus  "  (vol.  ii  of  his 
"  Christ  and  Christianity  "  ),  takes  the  same  view  of  our 
Lord's  birth  and  resurrection  that  I  do.      Canon  Fre- 
mantle,  of  Canterbury  Cathedral,  in  an  article  published 
in  "  The  Popular  Science  Monthly  "  for  June,  1887,  takes 
the  same  view.     Rev.  Prof.  Momerie,  in  his  "  Church  and 
Creed,"  takes  the  ground  that  whosoever  doeth  righteous- 
ness is  a  member  of  God's  (Christ's)  Church,  which  means 
that  good  Jews,  Turks,  Buddhists,  Chinese,  etc.,  must 
be  included  among  the  faithful.     I  am  at  liberty  to  quote 
some  passages  from  letters  he  has  written  me.     He  says  : 
"  I  have  not  said  much  about  miracles  [in  his  books]  ex- 
cept implicitly.     I,  of  course,  do  not  believe  in  them, 
except  as  the  subjective  fancies  of  unscientific  men."     In 
his  "  Church  and  Creed  "  (pp.  227-231  et  seq.)  he  accepts 
the  view   of   the  resurrection   advocated   in   this  book. 
Again,  in  a  letter  he  says,   "  The  facts  you  insist  on  (in 
this  book)  must  le  recognized  (italics  his)  by  the  Church 
on  pain  of  perishing  everlastingly,"  and  adds,   "Prof. 
Jowett  some  years  ago  said  in  a  sermon  at  the  Abbey 
[Westminster],  '  People  would  soon  give  up  believing  in 
miracles  as  they  had  given  up  believing  in  witchcraft.' ' 

The  liberal  opinions  of  Tait,  Stanley,  Maurice,  Farrar, 
etc.,  on  inspiration,  the  atonement,  future  retribution, 
and  the  like,  are  well  known.  The  point  is  this  :  these 
clergymen  represent,  and  are  known  to  represent,  a  large 
and  growing  school  of  thought  in  this  Church,  and  yet 


xviii    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 

the  Church  not  only  tolerates  them  but  has  given  them 
prominent  and  influential  positions.  Why,  then,  should 
it  be  thought  a  thing  so  heinous  in  me  to  adopt  and 
propagate  views  which  violate  no  principle  of  the  Church, 
and  which  she  tolerates  and  upholds  in  other  cases  ? 

It  is  said  that  we  can  not  conscientiously  repeat  the 
Creeds  of  the  Church  in  the  regular  service,  but  this  is 
not  true.  It  would,  indeed,  be  well  if  the  Church  al- 
lowed an  alternate  form  of  the  Article  on  the  birth,  as 
she  does  in  the  case  of  the  Article  on  Christ's  descent  into 
hell.  If  the  words  "or  born  of  Joseph  and  Mary" 
were  put  in  the  margin  of  our  Prayer  Book  as  a  substi- 
tute, when  preferred,  for  the  words  "  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,"  we  should  be  better  satisfied.  But  as  it  is  we 
can  explain  to  our  people  that  there  are  two  views  of 
Christ's  birth  in  the  Bible  :  one  which  assigns  only  one 
parent  to  Him,  and  another  (Matt.,  xiii,  55,  etc.)  which 
gives  Him  two  parents — either  of  which  may  be  accepted 
without  violating  the  principles  or  doctrines  of  this 
Church.  We  have  scriptural  authority  (Isaiah,  vii,  14) 
for  the  use  of  the  word  "virgin  "  in  the  sense  of  "young 
woman  "  merely.  We  do  not  believe  that  God  has  hands, 
though  the  Creed  says  Christ  "sitteth  at  the  right  hand 
of  God"  (see  Article  I).  No  intelligent  person  believes 
in  a  literal  resurrection  of  the  body,  though  the  Creed 
speaks  of  such,  and  Bishop  Pearson  and  all  the  older 
theologians  held  this  view.  We  believe  in  "the  spirit- 
ual body,"  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul,  and  as  we  shall  each 
have  such  a  body,  so  Christ,  we  may  believe,  had  such 
a  body— did  not  take  "  His  body,  with  flesh  and  bones," 
and  thus  ascend  into  heaven  ;  but  appeared  in  a  spirit- 
ual form,  and  then  withdrew  into  the  spiritual  world  that 
lies  back  of  and  gives  shape  to  the  material,  visible  world, 
somewhat  as  our  soul  inhabits  our  body  (see  chapters  on 
Miracles,  and  Heaven  and  Hell). 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION.  xix 

From  all  this  it  is  apparent  why 1  did  not  resign  from 
the  ministry  of  the  Episcopal  Church  when  I  reached 
these  views,  as  I  was  advised  to  do  by  some  friends.  I 
knew  that  I  did  not  violate  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  Church — that  my  departure  from  traditional  views 
was  not  greater  than  that  of  others  who  were  honored  by 
the  Church  ;  and  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  stay  in  the  Church 
and  do  what  I  could,  to  make  it  accomplish  its  purpose 
by  meeting  the  wants  of  the  age.  I  am  strongly  opposed 
to  sectarianism,  and  determined  I  would  not  willingly  be 
guilty  of  it ;  if  the  Church  excommunicated  me,  it  must 
bear  the  blame.  Moreover,  I  felt  that  it  could  be  only  a 
few  years,  at  most,  before  such  views  as  are  advocated 
in  this  volume  would  be  pretty  generally  accepted  by  the 
Church  ;  for,  whether  they  be  true  or  false,  they  are  being 
taught  in  all  the  leading  educational  institutions  of  the 
land  ;  and  the  rising  generation,  which  will  furnish  re- 
ligious, moral,  and  intellectual  teachers  to  the  next,  is 
being  thoroughly  imbued  with  such  teaching.  If,  there- 
fore, the  Church  were  wise,  she  would  gladly  accept  the 
services  of  all  earn  est- minded  men,  who  lead  pure  lives, 
and  would  fain  do  what  they  could  to  advance  her  in- 
tellectual and  spiritual  life.  But  it  seems  that  the  folly 
of  centuries  will  not  teach  her  that  excommunication 
neither  converts  the  "heretic"  nor  refutes  or  suppresses 
his  "  heresy  "  ;  and  so  we  find,  even  in  this  "enlightened 
generation,"  the  spirit,  if  not  the  cruelty,  of  the  old  In- 
quisition. 

It  is  hoped  that  this  preface  will  tend  to  vindicate 
my  mental  and  moral,  my  theological  and  ecclesiastical 
character. 

Howard  MacQueary. 

Canton,  Ohio,  January,  1891. 


PKEFATOEY. 


"There  can  be  little  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the 
thoughtful  observer  that  we  are  now  on  the  eve  of  the 
greatest  change  in  traditional  views  that  has  taken  place 
since  the  birth  of  Christianity.  This  change  means  not 
a  readjustment  of  details  only,  but  a  reconstruction  of 
Christian  theology."  * 

It  is  because  I  am  firmly  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
these  profound  words  that  I  have  written  this  book. 

Three  great  forces,  among  others,  will  effect  the  theo- 
logical and  ecclesiastical  revolution  predicted — viz.,  Physi- 
cal Science,  Biblical  Criticism,  and  the  Social  Movement. 
Our  young  men  and  women  who  enjoy  the  privileges  of 
the  higher  education  are  becoming  thoroughly  imbued 
with  the  teachings  of  Physical  Science,  which,  backed  by 
Biblical  Criticism,  is  aiming  deadly  blows  at  the  miracu- 
lous features  of  popular  Christianity,  and,  as  will  appear 
from  the  following  pages,  it  is  destined  to  profoundly 
modify  our  idea  of  miracles,  and  this  means  a  complete 
reconstruction  of  traditional  and  popular  theology.  Evo- 
lution is  "in  the  air,"  and  its  fundamental  tenets  are 
being  accepted  (perhaps  unconsciously)  by  all  classes  of 
minds — from  a  Huxley  to  a  hod-carrier.     It  behooves  us, 


*  Prof.  Joseph  Le  Conte,  "  Evolution  and  Religious  Thought," 
p.  277. 


8      EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

then,  as  religious  teachers  to  recognize  this  fact,  and  adjust 
our  theology  accordingly.  The  Social  or  Labor  movement 
is  assuming  (has  assumed)  an  anti-church  attitude.  The 
laborer  imagines  that  the  Church  is  not  his  friend,  and 
that  its  doctrines — its  "  fish-stories,"  etc. — have  been  ex- 
ploded by  Darwin,  Spencer,  Huxley,  and  others.  I  speak 
from  personal  knowledge  as  well  as  from  the  testimony  of 
others.*  The  Church  (i.  e.,  primarily  the  Clergy  and  sec- 
ondarily the  Laity)  must  arouse  itself  to  an  exact  recogni- 
tion of  the  facts  of  the  case  and  prepare  to  meet  the  issues 
before  it.  This  book  is  written  in  the  hope  of  drawing 
attention  more  generally  to  the  salient  points  of  the  work 
before  us.  No  one  is  more  conscious  of  its  defects  than 
its  author,  but  he  asks  his.  readers  to  give  him  credit  for 
at  least  honesty  and  loftiness  of  purpose. 

He  has  not  hesitated  to  reject  the  teachings  of  the 
most  venerable  and  the  most  eminent  when  they  seemed 
to  him  to  conflict  with  fact  and  reason.  He  has  done  this, 
however,  not  from  presumption  and  conceit,  but  simply 
because  his  conscience  and  intellect  would  not  allow  him 
to  accept  such  teachings.  He  is  conscious  of  having  used 
strong  language  in  some  places,  but  he  begs  his  readers  to 
remember  that  he  did  not  mean  to  stoop  to  personal  abuse, 
but  only  spoke  strongly  because  he  felt  strongly,  and  be- 
cause strong  language  alone  can  impress  certain  minds. 
Every  person,  whose  views  I  oppose  in  this  book,  has  my 
profound  respect,  and  indeed  it  is  because  I  respect  them 
that  I  oppose  their  theories ;  and,  could  we  be  thrown  to- 
gether, they  would  find  in  me  a  warm-hearted  friend. 

Of  course,  I  anticipate  great  opposition  from  various 
quarters,  and  any  courteous  criticism  of  my  position  will 
be  thankfully  received  and  duly  considered,  but  the  prime 

*  See   Prof.   R.  T.  Ely's  "  Labor  Movement  in  America,"  pp. 
244,  245. 


PREFATORY.  9 

object  of  the  book  is  not  to  stir  up  bitter  controversy,  but 
to  help  those,  of  all  classes,  who  are  troubled  by  the  diffi- 
culties of  traditional  and  popular  theology,  to  a  plane  of 
thought  from  which  they  may  espy  the  Celestial  City  and 
escape  the  miasmas  of  time-worn  Traditionalism.  It  is 
needless  to  say  that  I  have  drunk  deeply  of  the  quiet 
waters  of  popular  "  Orthodoxy,"  and  hence  can  sympathize 
with  those  who  still  find  in  it  a  haven  of  rest  for  their 
souls.  It  is  also  needless  to  say  that  in  putting  forth  from 
that  haven  I  have  experienced  the  usual  storms  of  mental 
and  spiritual  disturbance  which  beat  upon  one  in  his 
voyage  over  the  ocean  of  free  thought.  "  It  is  an  awful 
moment,"  says  Frederick  Robertson,  "  when  the  soul  be- 
gins to  find  that  the  props  on  which  it  has  blindly  rested 
so  long  are  many  of  them  rotten,  and  begins  to  suspect 
them  all ;  when  it  begins  to  feel  the  nothingness  of  many 
of  the  traditionary  opinions  which  have  been  received 
with  implicit  confidence,  and  in  that  horrible  insecurity 
begins  also  to  doubt  whether  there  be  anything  to  believe 
at  all.  It  is  an  awful  hour — let  him  who  has  passed 
through  it  say  how  awful — when  this  life  has  lost  its 
meaning,  and  seems  shriveled  into  a  span ;  when  the  grave 
appears  to  be  the  end  of  all,  human  goodness  nothing  but 
a  name,  and  the  sky  above  this  universe  a  dead  expanse, 
black  with  the  void  from  which  God  himself  has  disap- 
peared. In  that  fearful  loneliness  of  spirit,  when  those 
who  should  have  been  his  friends  and  counselors  only 
frown  upon  his  misgivings,  and  profanely  bid  him  stifle 
doubts,  which  for  aught  he  knows  may  arise  from  the 
fountain  of  truth  itself,  to  extinguish  as  a  glare  from  hell 
that  which  for  aught  he  knows  may  be  light  from  heaven, 
and  everything  seems  wrapped  in  hideous  uncertainty,  I 
know  but  one  way  in  which  a  man  may  come  forth  from 
his  agony  scathless :  it  is  by  holding  fast  to  those  things 
which  are  certain  still,  the  grand,  simple  landmarks  of 


10    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

morality.  In  the  darkest  hour  through  which  a  human 
soul  can  pass,  whatever  else  is  doubtful,  this  at  least  is 
certain. 

"  If  there  be  no  God  and  no  future  state,  yet,  even  then, 
it  is  better  to  be  generous  than  selfish,  better  to  be  chaste 
than  licentious,  better  be  true  than  false,  better  to  be 
brave  than  to  be  a  coward.  Blessed  beyond  all  earthly 
blessedness  is  the  man  who,  in  the  tempestuous  darkness 
of  the  soul,  has  dared  to  hold  fast  to  these  venerable  land- 
marks. Thrice  blessed  because  his  night  shall  pass  into 
clear,  bright  day.  At  last  he  will  stand  upon  the  rock,  the 
surges  stilled  below  him,  the  last  cloud  drifted  from  the 
sky  above,  with  a  faith,  and  hope,  and  trust  which  neither 
earth  nor  hell  shall  shake  thenceforth  forever."  *  Who- 
ever launches  out  on  the  river  of  thought  involved  in  the 
word  "  Evolution  "  will  experience  the  tempest  thus  elo- 
quently described ;  he  will  be  carried  out  into  a  sea  which 
has  its  dangers,  its  quicksands,  its  deceitful  currents ;  and 
it  will  require  wary  sailing  and  good  pilots -in  order  to 
make  a  safe  voyage :  but  it  ought  to  be  a  subject  of  earnest 
thought  whether  it  is  better  to  be  sailing  there,  on  to 
something  better  in  the  Infinite,  or  riding  at  anchor  in 
the  tranquil,  landlocked  bay  of  Traditionalism. 

During  the  preparation  of  this  book  I  have  been  asked 
more  than  once,  how  could  I  hold  such  views  consistently 
with  my  ordination  vows  ?  And  as  this  question  may  be 
asked  by  the  different  readers  of  the  book,  I  shall  here 
answer  it.  As  a  clergyman  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  I  was  asked  at  my  ordination  this  question  :  "  Are 
you  persuaded  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  Doc- 
trine required  as  necessary  to  eternal  salvation  through 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ  ?    And  are  you  determined  out  of 

*  Robertson's  "  Life  and  Letters,"  by  Brooke.  "  Second  Address 
to  Workingmen." 


PREFATORY.  H 

the  said  Scriptures  to  instruct  the  people  committed  to 
your  charge,  and  to  teach  nothing,  as  necessary  to  eternal 
salvation,  but  that  which  you  shall  be  persuaded  may  be 
concluded  and  proved  by  the  Scripture  ?  "  To  which  I 
answered,  "  I  am  so  persuaded,  and  have  so  determined, 
by  God's  grace,"  and  I  am  of  the  same  opinion  still.  Let 
us  compare  with  this  ordination  vow  the  Sixtli  of  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Religion.  It  reads,  "  Holy  Script- 
ure containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  so  that 
whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  there- 
by, is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  be- 
lieved as  an  article  of  the  Faith,  or  be  thought  requisite 
or  necessary  to  salvation."  It  then  gives  a  list  of  the  gen- 
erally accepted  "  canonical  books  "  which  we  understand 
to  be  Holy  Scripture. 

Now  observe,  first,  that  the  ordination  vow  and  the 
article  both  assert  plainly  the  Right  of  Private  Judgment : 
each  man  is  to  study  the  Bible  and  ascertain  for  himself 
what  things  in  it  are  necessary  articles  of  faith. 

The  creeds  and  articles,  therefore,  are  mere  summaries 
of  what  their  originators  considered  the  essential  truths 
of  the  Bible,  but  every  one  must  test  them  by  the  Bible, 
and  this  I  claim  to  have  done  in  the  following  pages.  For 
instance,  in  refusing  to  accept  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
story  of  the  Virgin-Birth  of  the  Saviour,  I  claim  to  be  fol- 
lowing Isaiah.  I  attach  to  the  word  "  virgin  "  the  mean- 
ing he  gave  it — namely,  that  of  "  young  woman." 

And,  again,  in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  a  gross  ma- 
terial resurrection  I  claim  to  be  following  II  Peter,  iii, 
10,  which  teaches,  with  modern  physical  science,  that 
"  matter  "  is  not  to  be  eternal. 

Secondly.  Neither  the  ordination  vow  nor  the  article 
asserts  any  theory  of  Inspiration :  they  merely  say,  "  Holy 
Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,"  and 
this  I  heartily  believe. 


12    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Thirdly.  Nowhere  does  our  Church  lay  down  any  for- 
mula concerning  the  authorship  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  The  Sixth  Article  merely  enumerates  these,  but 
Bays  not  a  word  as  to  when  or  by  whom  they  were  written, 
and  hence  every  Episcopalian  is  at  liberty  to  freely  inves- 
tigate this  subject  for  himself. 

Fourthly.  The  subtle  Athanasian  theories  of  the  God- 
head,  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the  Atonement,  etc.,  find  no 
place  in  our  formulas,  and  an  evolutionist  holding  the 
views  expressed  in  the  following  pages  can  conscientiously 
use  our  Liturgy. 

Fifthly.  On  the  vexed  question  of  Future  Punishment 
our  Church  has  not  a  single  line  save  in  the  Litany,  where 
we  pray  to  be  delivered  from  "everlasting  damnation." 
But,  as  Archdeacon  Farrar  long  ago  pointed  out,  this  is 
no  formula,  and,  even  if  it  were,  the  words  "  everlasting 
damnation"  could  only  mean  what  they  mean  in  Holy 
Scripture,  and  what  that  meaning  is  I  have  explained  in 
the  chapter  on  "  Evolution  :  Heaven  and  Hell." 

Finally.  On  the  question  of  man's  origin  our  Church 
has  not  a  single  word,  and  the  Ninth  Article  (on  "  Origi- 
nal Sin  ")  may  be  dealt  with  in  one  of  two  ways  :  we  may 
either  appeal  from  it  to  Holy  Scripture,  as  I  do  in  this 
work,  or  we  may  claim  that  the  state  of  original  innocence 
which  it  speaks  of  is,  in  the  evolutionist's  opinion,  merely 
the  period  during  which  man  existed  as  an  irresponsible 
animal — i.  e.,  the  period  between  his  origination  and  the 
birth  of  his  moral  sense  or  "  Conscience."  I  think,  how- 
ever, that  the  Ninth  Article  is  a  crude,  Calvinistic  state- 
ment of  the  Biblical  idea  of  Sin.  The  Bible  emphasizes, 
not  the  supposed  fall  of  Adam,  but  the  universal  fact  of 
Sin.  Theologians,  mistaking  an  allegory  for  literal  his- 
tory, have  supposed  that  whenever  the  Bible  speaks  of  sin 
it  means  that  in  Adam  all  mankind  fell  from  a  state  of 
perfect  righteousness  into  a  state  of  utter  moral  depravity. 


PREFATORY.  13 

This,  I  attempt  to  show,  is  false.  It  seems  never  to  have 
occurred  to  my  interrogators  that  their  questions  had  pre- 
sented themselves  to  my  mind  at  an  early  stage  of  my  in- 
quiries, and,  by  earnest  thought  and  the  help  of  bishops, 
doctors,  and  professors,  I  had  been  enabled  to  avoid  tak- 
ing the  course  of  a  "  Kobert  Elsmere."  The  truth  is,  Epis- 
copalians— and  more  especially  non-Episcopalians — do  not 
fully  realize  the  real  catholicity  of  our  Church.  They 
think  that  the  "  Church  of  Henry  VIII  "  (falsely  so  called) 
is  as  narrow  as  any  sect  in  Christendom,  and  it  is  mainly 
because  I  wish  to  show  that  it  is  at  least  as  broad  as  the 
Bible  itself  that  I  write  this  preface.  A  Channing  or  a 
Beecher  might  have  found  a  comfortable  home  within  our 
fold,  so  far  as  the  Prayer -Boole's  teaching  is  concerned, 
and  if  "  the  powers  that  be  "  will  only  act  in  the  spirit  of 
the  Prayer-Book,  the  American  Episcopal  Church  may 
yet  become  the  rallying-point  of  many  broad-minded  men 
and  women,  who  else  would  drift  away  into  vague  uii\>q- 
lief  or  absolute  disbelief ;  and  this  is  not  my  opinion 
merely,  for,  in  a  letter  to  me,  Prof.  Alexander  "Winchell,  a 
Methodist,  said,  "  It  has  been  my  good  fortune  to  find 
several  church  rectors  with  views  as  broad  and  liberal  as 
the  truth  itself."  Then,  mentioning  those  "rectors'"  by 
name,  he  added,  "  It  looks  as  if  Episcopal  rectors  were 
destined  to  become  leaders  in  liberal  Christian  thought." 
One  can  not  help  being  reminded  by  these  words  of  our 
Kingsleys,  Maurices,  Stanleys,  Eobertsons,  Farrars,  Ar- 
nolds, Fremantles,  etc. — all  of  whom,  however  much  they 
may  have  differed  on  minor  points,  were  and  are  distin- 
guished as  "leaders  in  liberal  Christian  thought,"  and 
they  believe  that  they  are  loyal  to  the  real  spirit  and  mean- 
ing of  the  Prayer-Book. 

"  These  are  the  men,"  to  apply  Dean  Stanley's  words 
to  his  own  class — "  these  are  the  men,  wherever  they  are, 
and  whosoever  they  may  be,  and  howsoever  they  may  be 


U    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

neglected,  or  assailed,  or  despised— these  are  the  silent 
healers,  who  must  bind  up  the  wounds  of  their  age  in 
spite  of  itself;  they  are  the  good  physicians  who  must 
knit  together  the  dislocated  bones  of  a  disjointed  time ; 
they  are  the  reconcilers  who  must  turn  the  hearts  of  the 
children  to  the  fathers,  or  of  the  fathers  to  the  children. 
They  will  have  but  little  praise  or  reward  from  the  par- 
tisans, who  will  be  loud  in  indiscriminate  censure  and  ap- 
plause. 

"  They  will  be  attacked  from  both  sides  ;  they  will  be 
charged  with  not  going  far  enough  or  with  going  too  far ; 
they  will  be  charged  with  saying  too  much  or  with  saying 
too  little ;  they  will  be  regarded  from  either  partial  point 
of  view  and  not  from  one  which  takes  in  the  whole.  But, 
like  Samuel  of  old,  they  will  have  a  far  higher  reward  in 
the  Davids  who  are  silently  strengthened  and  nurtured  by 
them  in  Naioth  of  Ramah— in  the  glories  of  a  new  age, 
which  shall  be  ushered  in  peacefully  and  happily  after 
they  have  been  laid  in  the  grave."  * 

This  school  has  been  more  than  once  accused  of  teach- 
ing "  negative  theology,"  f  and  I  have  reason  to  anticipate 
such  a  charge  against  this  book.  Let  me  say,  then,  once 
for  all,  that  my  aim  has  been  to  substitute  new  truths  in 
the  place  of  the  old  ;  and  while  I  have  been  compelled  to 
tear  down  certain  theories,  in  no  case  have  I  failed  to 
offer  what  I  consider  more  rational,  credible,  and  Script- 
ural views  in  their  place.  I  claim,  therefore,  a  decidedly 
positive  character  for  my  theology.  But  let  it  ever  be 
remembered  that  Christianity  consists,  not  in  theories  of 
any  sort,  but  in  a  Personal  Life — the  life  of  Jesus.  He  is 
its  center  and  circumference,  and  my  aim  in  this  book — 
nay,  the  effort  of  my  whole  life — is,  and  shall  be,  to  lead 

*  Stanley's  "  Jewish  Church,"  lecture  xviii. 

f  Robertson's  "  Life  and  Letters,"  introduction,  p.  vii. 


PREFATORY.  15 

men's  minds  away  from  all  theories,  whether  of  my  own 
making  or  of  somebody  else's,  to  Him — to  the  humble, 
self-renouncing,  noble,  Godlike  Son  of  Man. 

If  this  is  "  negative  theology "  I  rejoice  to  "  plead 
guilty,"  and  cry  for  more  such  negation.  Where  is  the 
man  that  can  say  aught  against  Him  ?  Who  is  ashamed 
to  take  his  stand  by  His  side  ?  Where  is  the  father  who 
would  not  have  his  son  follow  His  example — be  His  disci- 
ple ?  When  even  an  R.  G.  Ingersoll  can  say,  "  For  the 
man  Christ  I  have  infinite  respect;  to  that  great  and 
serene  Man  I  gladly  pay — gladly  pay — the  tribute  of 
my  admiration  and  my  tears,"  surely  there  is  no  need  of 
insisting  on  his  transcendent  character.  We  do  not  real- 
ize what  a  treasure  we  have  in  that  Character ;  we  do  not 
realize  how  we  dishonor  that  Character  by  our  irrational 
or  imperfect  theories  about  it ;  we  do  not  know  what  in- 
finite harm  we  do  to  religion  by  giving  men  the  stones  of 
dogmatic  theology  instead  of  the  bread  of  that  grand 
Life.  If  this  book  hammers  down  any  of  the  stone  walls 
that  have  been  built  round  that  inviolable  shrine  and 
makes  men  cling  more  closely  to  the  Rock  of  Ages — if  it 
leads  any  one  to  think  less  of  Theology  and  more  of  Christ 
— the  charge  of  preaching  "  negations  "  can  not  be  justly 
brought  against  its  author.  I  long  to  hear  the  Master's 
summons  re-echo  through  his  church,  "Follow  me"  I 
long  to  see  his  test  of  religious  character  applied  once 
more,  and  if  I  can  help  in  its  application,  I  can  bear  even 
the  charge  of  "  negative  theology,"  which  is  often  another 
name  for  positive  Christianity. 

I  conclude  this  too  extended  "  preface  "  by  making 
one  request,  which  I  earnestly  hope  all  readers  of  this  book 
will  grant :  If  they  should  feel  inclined  to  criticise  it,  they 
will  greatly  oblige  the  author  by  reading,  before  they  make 
such  criticism,  all  the  books  referred  to  which  they  may 
not  have  read,  if  there  be  any. 


16    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

A  bit  of  experience  which  I  had  during  the  prepara- 
tion of  this  work  leads  me  to  make  this  request.  I  was 
corresponding  with  a  bishop  on  some  of  the  questions  dis- 
cussed, and  I  asked  him  what  he  thought  of  Dr.  Keim's 
views  of  the  birth  and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  He  did  not, 
in  his  reply,  answer  directly  this  question,  and  I  remarked 
to  a  friend  to  whom  I  read  his  letter  that  I  did  not  believe 
the  bishop  had  read  Keim.  He  laughed  at  the  idea  of  a 
bishop's  not  having  read  this  work ;  but  in  a  correspond- 
ence with  another  (an  English)  bishop,  a  very  learned 
and  liberal  man,  I  found  that  he  had  not  read  Keim,  but 
judged  him  from  quotations  which  others  made  from  his 
writings.  This  bishop  was  good  enough,  however,  to  buy 
Keim's  great  work  and  to  read  it.  At  first  he  thought 
that  Keim  agreed  essentially  with  Renan,  Baur,  and  their 
followers;  but  he  discovered  his  mistake.  This  experi- 
ence proved  to  me  two  things  : 

First,  that  many  learned  people  are  not  as  widely  read 
as  they  are  supposed  to  be ;  and, 

Secondly,  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  judge  one  from  hear- 
say. Dr.  Keim's  lvork,  it  will  be  noted  in  the  sequel,  is 
one  of  the  most  important  works  cited,  and  I  specially  in- . 
sist  on  my  readers  studying  his  views  and  those  of  other 
Biblical  critics  quoted,  if  they  have  not  studied  them,  for, 
as  a  learned  friend  who  has  seen  the  manuscript  of  this 
book  tells  me,  "  the  chapter  on  New  Testament  Scriptures 
(Introduction  to  Part  II)  will  be  unsatisfactory  to  some, 
because  it  is  necessarily  so  brief;  such  (he  adds)  will, 
or  ought  to,  consult  the  originals  from  which  you  quote." 
It  is  not  presumption,  then,  nor  a  reflection  on  any  one's 
intelligence  to  make  such  a  request  as  this. 

The  book  is  intended  to  be  popular  and  suggestive — 
to  suggest  lines  of  thought  which  every  one  may  follow 
out  for  himself,  and  hence  he  should  consult  all  the  works 
referred  to,  if  he  have  not,  and  others  which  they  refer  to 


PREFATORY. 


17 


—provided,  of  course,  he  be  not  satisfied  with  the  views 
herein  expressed. 

If  he  should  imagine,  for  instance,  that,  because  he  is 
familiar  with  Renan,  Strauss,  and  Baur,  he  can  judge  of 
Keim's  position  and  conclusions  (as  the  good  bishop  did), 
he  may  greatly  err.  Keim  may  advance  an  argument  or 
state  a  fact  on  some  particular  point  which  others  have 
ignored  or  merely  glanced  at,  and  this  argument  or  fact 
might  absolutely  change  one's  opinion.  So  with  other 
writers. 

But  there  are  many,  even  now,  who  "would  not  be 
persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the  dead."  As  a  friend, 
already  quoted,  says :  "  Most  people  won't  receive  a  great 
new  truth,  not  because  of  want  of  evidence,  but  because  it 
requires  a  complete  readjustment  of  their  mental  furni- 
ture ;  and  most  people's  furniture  is  screwed  down  to  the 
flooring  of  the  mind  in  such  wise  that  it  requires  a  rip- 
ping up  of  the  whole  mental  structure." 

But  while  I  can  not  hope  to  influence  this  class  of 

minds,  yet  there  are  others  who  are  not  so  stereotyped  in 

prejudice  as  to  be  absolutely  unimpressible  by  facts  and 

.reasons,  and  there  are  some,  even  in  the  Church,  who  may 

gladly  receive  old  truths  in  new  forms. 

The  Authok. 
Canton,  Ohio,  October,  1889. 


CONTENTS. 


PART   I. 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN. 

CHAPTER 

I. — God  and  Nature 

II. — Man's  Origin  according  to  Science 
III. — Man's  Origin  according  to  Theology 
IV. — The  Age  of  the  Human  Race 

V. — Man's  Primitive  Home  and  Condition 


PAGE 

21 
37 
72 
84 
113 


PART    II. 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 
Introduction — The  Documents 
I. — Evolution  and  Miracles 
II. — Evolution  and  Inspiration  . 
III. — Evolution  and  the  Trinity. 
IV. — Evolution  and  the  Divinity  of  Christ 

V. — E.'OLUTION    AND    THE    ATONEMENT 

VI. — Evolution  :    Heaven  and  Hell 
VII. — Evolution  and  the  Problem  of  Evil 
VIII. — Evolution  and  Bodily  Resurrection 
IX. — Evolution  and  Immortality 
X. — The  Church  of  the  Future 


138 
191 
231 
256 
277 
295 
312 
337 
363 
376 
394 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN 
AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTEE  I. 

GOD   AND   NATURE. 

None  hut  the  fool  can  say,  "  There  is  no  God,"  and, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  deepest  thinkers  even  among 
the  agnostics  acknowledge  the  existence  of  God,  al- 
though they  prefer  another  name  for  Him.  Thus  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer,  the  Corypheus  of  agnosticism,  says: 
"  One  truth  must  grow  ever  clearer — the  truth  that 
there  is  an  Inscrutable  Existence  everywhere  mani- 
fested, to  which  man  can  neither  find  nor  conceive 
either  beginning  or  end.  Amid  the  mysteries  which 
become  the  more  mysterious  the  more  they  are  thought 
about,  there  will  remain  the  one  absolute  certainty  that 
he  is  ever  in  the  presence  of  an  Infinite  and  Eternal 
Energy  from  which  all  things  proceed."  *  And  when 
he  adds,  elsewhere,  that  it  is  this  same  Power  which 
"in  ourselves  wells  up  under  the  form  of  conscious- 
ness," we  find  it  quite  unnecessary  to  dispute  with  him 
on  this  subject.  Call  Him  what  you  will,  God  is  ;  and 
the  only  remaining  qnestion  is,  What  is  His  character  ? 


*  Spencer's  "  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,"  p.  843 ;  cf .  p.  839. 


22    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Mr.  Spencer  thinks  that  this  is  "  utterly  inscruta- 
ble," but  many,  even  among  the  members  of  his  own 
school  of  thought,  disagree  with  him  on  this  point. 
Thus  Prof.  John  Fiske,  one  of  Spencer's  most  ardent 
admirers  and  brilliant  disciples,  says :  "  Though  we 
may  not  by  searching  find  out  God ;  though  we  may 
not  compass  infinitude  or  attain  to  absolute  knowledge, 
we  may  at  least  know  all  that  it  concerns  us  to  know, 
as  intelligent  and  responsible  beings.  Deity  is  un- 
knowable just  in  so  far  as  it  is  not  manifested  to  con- 
sciousness through  the  phenomenal  world — knowable 
just  in  so  far  as  it  is  thus  manifested ;  unknowable  in 
so  far  as  infinite  and  absolute — knowable  in  the  order 
of  its  phenomenal  manifestations — knowable,  in  a  sym- 
bolic way,  as  the  Power  which  is  disclosed  in  every 
throb  of  the  mighty  rhythmic  life  of  the  universe — 
knowable  as  the  Eternal  Source  of  a  moral  law  which 
is  implicated  with  each  action  of  our  lives  and  in  the 
obedience  to  which  lies  our  only  guarantee  of  the  happi- 
ness which  is  incorruptible,  and  which  neither  inevita- 
ble misfortune  nor  unmerited  obloquy  can  take  away. 
There  is  a  "  reasonableness,"  he  adds,  "  in  the  universe 
such  as  to  indicate  that  the  Infinite  Power,  of  which  it 
is  the  multiform  manifestation,  is  psychical,  though 
it  is  impossible  to  ascribe  to  Him  any  of  the  limited 
psychical  attributes  which  we  know  or  to  argue  from 
the  ways  of  man  to  the  ways  of  God."  No  wrondcr, 
then,  that  our  author  should  say :  "  How  far  my  view 
agrees  with  his  "(Mr.  Spencer's)  "I  do  not  undertake 
to  say.  On  such  an  abstruse  matter  it  is  best  that  one 
should  simply  speak  for  one's  self."*      I  do  not  see 


*  Fiske's  "  Idea  of  God,"  preface,  pp.  xxiv,  xxviii,  xxix,  etc. 


GOD  AND  NATURE.  23 

what  more  a  Christian  could  desire  from  science  than 
this.  Indeed,  Dr.  Martensen,  whose  learning  and  piety 
will  not  be  questioned,  expresses  essentially  the  same 
view  when  he  says :  "  We  may  have  a  true,  though  not 
an  adequate  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  God.  We 
can  not  have  an  adequate  knowledge  of  God — that  is,  a 
knowledge  coextensive  in  every  feature  with  its  subject. 
We  can,  however,  have  a  true  knowledge;  that  is,  a 
knowledge  true  in  principle,  true  in  its  tendency,  and 
true  in  the  goal  at  which  it  aims — true,  because  it  goes 
out  from  and  leads  to  God."  He  further  assures  us 
that  "  even  the  profoundest  speculative  knowledge  must 
be  supplemented  by  a  believing  ignorance  ;  and  the 
deepest  attempts  to  fathom  the  mystery  of  God  reveal 
to  us  unfathomable  abysses  which  no  eye  can  reach."  * 

Theologians  and  Scientists  being  thus  agreed  as  to 
the  knowledge  of  God  attainable  by  man,  it  seems  un- 
necessary to  consider  this  subject  at  length.  We  may 
have  a  true  though  not  a  perfect  or  complete  knowl- 
edge of  God,  and  that  knowledge  is  obtained  in  two 
ways :  viz.,  by  the  contemplation  of  man,  and  by  the 
study  of  the  external  world. 

It  is  not,  however,  my  purpose  to  undertake  to 
prove  the  existence  of  God,  since  all  that  it  is  necessary 
to  say  on  this  point  will  be  said  incidentally  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages.  But  I  may  remark,  in  passing,  that 
while  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  has  exploded  the  forms 
in  which  the  old  arguments  for  God's  existence  were 
cast,  the  essence  of  those  arguments  is  not  destroyed 
but  rather  cleared  and  strengthened  by  Evolution. 
Thus,  we  may  not,  in  Paley-fashion,  argue,  "  The  liu- 

*  Martensen,  "  Christian  Dogmatics,"  pp.  90,  91. 


24    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

man  eye  shows  as  much  intelligent  design  in  its  con- 
struction as  an  eye-glass  docs,  and,  therefore,  its  De- 
signer must  be  a  being  like  unto  the  optician." 

Evolution  reveals  an  important  difference  between 
the  formation  of  the  eye  and  of  the  eye-glass :  the  one 
grows  from  a  little  speck,  and  the  other  is  made  all  of 
a  piece.  Hence  we  must  go  back  to  the  germ  and  urge 
that  the  Power  which  originated  a  germ  capable  of  cle- 
veloping  into  Man,  with  his  wonderful  powers  of  mind 
and  body,  must  be  infinitely  superior  in  wisdom  and 
might  to  a  finite  being,  like  Man.  In  other  words,  we 
can  no  longer  confine  our  attention  to  some  special 
feature  of  the  process  of  Evolution  or  Creation,  but  we 
must  take  a  larger  view  ;  we  must  consider  it  as  a  whole, 
and  if  we  do  this,  we  shall  understand  the  profound 
truth  of  Prof.  Huxley's  words  on  this  subject. 

"The  teleology,"  he  says,  "which  supposes  that  the 
eye,  such  as  we  see  it  in  Man  or  one  of  the  higher 
vertebrates,  was  made  with  the  precise  structure  it  ex- 
hibits, for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  animal  which  pos- 
sesses it  to  see,  has  undoubtedly  received  its  death-blow  " 
(from  Mr.  Darwin).  "  Nevertheless,  it  is  necessary  to 
remember  that  there  is  a  wider  teleology  which  is  not 
touched  by  the  doctrine  of  Evolution,  but  is  actually  based 
upon  the  fundamental  proposition  of  Evolution"  * 

Evolution  affords  the  very  strongest  evidences  of  the 
existence  of  an  Infinite  Intelligence  and  Will  back  of 
and  in  Nature.  God  is  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega  of  all 
Evolution.  Without  Him  it  could  not  begin  or  con- 
tinue its  mighty  work,  but  the  God  of  Evolution  is  not 


•"Critiques  and  Addresses,"  p.  305,  cited  in  "  Popular  Science 
Monthly/'  June,  1888,  p.  212. 


GOD  AND  NATURE.  25 

the  God  of  traditional  or  popular  theology ;  and  since 
it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  have  as  clear  a  notion  on 
this  subject  as  possible — since  much  that  will  follow 
can  not  otherwise  be  understood — since,  in  a  word,  it 
seems  to  the  writer  that  a  more  or  less  vague  and  erro- 
neous view  of  God  vitiates  and  obscures  much  that  is 
said  and  written  by  even  learned  theologians  on  Evolu- 
tion, I  have  determined  to  state  as  clearly  as  I  can  the 
theory  of  Divinity  which  will  be  applied  in  this  book. 

God  and  Nature  are  the  opposite  poles  of  all  thought, 
and  so  we  can  not  discuss  the  one  apart  from  the  other. 
What,  then,  shall  we  think  of  Nature  ?  What  is  it  ? 
Three  answers  are  given  to  this  important  question : 

First,  one  school  of  thought — the  Materialistic — 
says,  "  Matter  and  Force  "  constitute  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  Nature.  Matter  is  that  which  occupies  space 
— as,  for  instance,  this  pen  with  which  I  write,  which 
is  composed  of  infinitely  small  particles  called  "atoms," 
that  are  held  together  and  in  certain  positions  by 
"  forces "  residing  within  them.  But  Prof.  Huxley 
most  effectually  disposes  of  this  view  in  the  following 
masterful  manner :  "  When  I  was  a  mere  boy,"  he 
says,  "  with  a  perverse  tendency  to  think  when  I  ought 
to  have  been  playing,  my  mind  was  greatly  exercised 
by  this  formidable  problem,  What  would  become  of 
things  if  they  lost  their  qualities  f  As  the  qualities 
had  no  objective  existence,  and  the  thing  without  quali- 
ties was  nothing,  the  solid  world  seemed  whittled  away 
— to  my  great  horror.  As  I  grew  older,  and  learned  to 
use  the  terms  'matter'  and  ' force,'  the  boyish  prob- 
lem was  revived — mutato  nomine.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  notion  of  matter  without  force  seemed  to  resolve 
the  world  into  a  set  of  geometrical  ghosts  too  dead  even 


26    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY, 

to  jabber.  On  the  other,  Boscovich's  hypothesis,  by 
which  matter  was  resolved  into  centers  of  force,  was 
very  attractive.  But  when  one  tried  to  think  it  out, 
what  in  the  world  became  of  force  considered  as  an 
objective  entity?  Force,  even  the  most  materialistic 
philosophers  will  agree  with  the  most  idealistic,  is  noth- 
ing but  a  name  for  the  cause  of  motion.  And  if,  with 
Boscovich,  I  resolved  things  into  centers  of  force,  then 
matter  vanished  altogether,  and  left  immaterial  entities 
in  its  place.  One  might  as  well  frankly  accept  idealism 
and  have  done  with  it.  I  must  make  a  confession,"  he 
adds,  "  even  if  it  be  humiliating.  I  have  never  been 
able  to  form  the  slightest  conception  of  those  '  forces ' 
which  the  materialists  talk  about,  as  if  they  had  samples 
of  them  many  years  in  bottle.  They  tell  me  that  mat- 
ter consists  of  atoms,  which  are  separated  by  mere  space, 
devoid  of  contents  ;  and  that,  through  this  void,  radiate 
attractive  and  repulsive  forces  whereby  the  atoms  affect 
one  another.  If  anybody  can  clearly  conceive  the  na- 
ture of  these  things  which  not  only  exist  in  nothingness, 
but  pull  and  push  there  with  great  vigor,  I  envy  him 
for  the  possession  of  an  intellect  of  larger  grasp,  not 
only  than  mine,  but  than  that  of  Leibnitz  or  of  Newton. 
"  Let  it  not  be  supposed,"  he  concludes,  "  that  I  am 
casting  a  doubt  upon  the  propriety  of  the  employment 
of  the  terms  *  atom '  and  '  force '  as  they  stand  among 
the  working  hypotheses  of  physical  science.  As  for- 
mulae which  can  be  applied  with  perfect  precision  and 
-Mat  convenience  in  the  interpretation  of  Nature,  their 
value  is  incalculable;  but,  as  real  entities,  having  ob- 
jective existence,  an  indivisible  particle,  which,  never- 
theless, occupies  space,  is  surely  inconceivable;  and 
with  respect  to  the  operation  of  that  atom,  where  it  is 


GOB  AND  NATURE.  27 

not  by  the  aid  of  a  '  force '  resident  in  nothingness,  I  am 
as  little  able  to  imagine  it  as  I  fancy  any  one  else  is."  * 

With  such  arguments,  and  backed  by  such  author- 
ity, we  may  set  the  materialistic  view  of  Nature  on  one 
side,  and  pass  to  the  second — the  Idealistic — view,  of 
which  that  great  Irishman,  George  Berkeley,  Bishop 
of  Cloyne,  who  lived  two  hundred  years  ago,  was  one 
of  the  most  eminent  advocates.  "  Idealism,"  says  Dr. 
Krauth,  in  his  admirable  edition  of  Berkeley's  "Princi- 
ples of  Human  Knowledge,"  (page  66)  "  is  on  the  whole, 
with  reference  to  the  part  it  has  played  in  the  history 
of  human  thought,  the  greatest  of  systems.  Like  Eng- 
land, its  drum-beat  follows  the  sunrise  till  it  circles  the 
world."  "  The  essence  of  idealism,"  says  Frederick 
Schlegel  (ibid.,  page  67),  "consists  in  holding  the  /Spir- 
itual alone  as  actual  and  truly  real,  in  entirely  denying 
to  bodies  and  matter  existence  and  reality,  in  explain- 
ing them  as  mere  appearance  and  illusion,  or  at  least 
transmuting  and  resolving  them  into  Spirit." 

Accordingly,  Berkeley  remarks:  "It  is  an  opinion 
strangely  prevailing  among  men  that  houses,  mountains, 
rivers,  and,  in  a  word,  all  sensible  objects,  have  an  exist- 
ence, natural  or  real,  distinct  from  their  being  perceived 
by  the  under  standing."  But  he  maintains  that  "  there  is 
not  any  other  substance  than  Spirit,  or  that  which  per- 
ceives. ...  It  is  said,"  he  adds,  "  that  extension  is  a 
mode  of  matter,  and  that  matter  is  the  substratum  that 
supports  it.  ISTow,  I  desire  that  you  would  explain  to 
me  what  is  meant  by  matter  as  supporting  extension.  It 
is  evident  '  support '  can  not  here  be  taken  in  its  usual 
or  literal  sense,  as  when  we  say  that  pillars  support  a 

*  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  February,  1887,  pp.  499,  500. 


28    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

building ;  in  what  sense,  therefore,  must  it  be  taken  ? 
For  my  part,  I  am  unable  to  discover  any  sense  at  all 
that  can  be  applicable  to  it." 

Thus,  Berkeley  denies  that  matter  is  the  "substra- 
tum "  of  things,  and  asserts  that  "  Spirit  is  the  only 
substance" ;  and  hence  he  inverts  the  popular  thought 
on  this  subject,  putting  Mind  in  place  of  Matter,  and 
allowing  only  a  relative  existence  to  the  latter.  He 
does  not  deny  utterly  all  reality  to  Matter,  but  only  its 
independent,  absolute  existence.  He  believes  it  exists 
in  relation  to  3find,  somewhat  as  the  shadow  is  related 
to  the  body  which  reflects  it.  The  shadow  has  an  ex- 
istence, but  not  apart  from  the  body ;  and  so  Berkeley 
says :  "  The  table  I  write  on  exists — that  is,  I  see  and 
feel  it ;  and  if  I  were  out  of  my  study  I  should  say  it 
existed,  meaning  that  if  I  were  in  my  study  I  might 
perceive  it,  or  that  some  other  spirit  actually  does  per- 
ceive it."  * 

Hence,  Dr.  Krauth  well  observes  that  "  the  absolute 
existence  of  sensible  objects — i.  e.,  in  themselves  or  with- 
out a  mind — is  the  principle  Berkeley  argues  against  as 
either  meaningless  or  contradictory."  And  it  is  because 
so  many  fail  to  clearly  grasp  this  fundamental  propo- 
sition of  Berkeleyism  that  they  misunderstand  and  mis- 
represent it.  When  our  philosopher  says  that  the  table 
in  his  study  exists  either  in  relation  to  his  mind  or  to 
"  some  other  Spirit "  that  "  actually  does  perceive  it," 
he  sounds  the  key-note  to  his  whole  system.  He  teaches 
that  all  sensible  objects  exist  only  in  relation  to  the  Di- 
vine or  Human  Mind.     Nature  is  mere  "visible  Spir- 

*  Berkeley's  "  Principles  of  Human  Knowledge,"  Krauth's  edi- 
tion, pp.  195-203. 


GOD  AND  NATURE.  29 

it" ;  is  the  Living  Garment,  in  which  the  All-Beautiful 
has  robed  His  mysterious  loveliness — is  simply  and  only 
"an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  Spir- 
itual" Being — an  externalized,  objectified  mode  of  the 
Divine  Mind. 

Now,  while  Prof.  Huxley  thinks  that  any  hypothe- 
sis which  may  be  held  on  the  subject  in  hand  is  only  a 
speculation  incapable  of  demonstration,*  yet  it  is  inter- 
esting to  read  these  words  from  his  pen :  "  The  good 
Bishop  Berkeley,  if  he  were  alive,  would  find  such 
facts  "  (as  those  revealed  by  physical  science)  "  fit  into 
his  system  without  the  least  difficulty."  f  And  many 
others,  even  among  those  who  are  not  Idealists,  say 
the  same ;  and  hence,  in  these  days,  when  theology 
and  physical  science  are  at  swords'-points,  a  large  num- 
ber of  thinkers  is  found  turning  to  Berkeley  for  relief. 
For  my  own  part,  I  think  that  something  like  Berkeley- 
ism  is  the  only  philosophy  which  can  meet  the  demands 
of  the  case.  Science  has  forever  exploded  the  low  view 
of  God,  which  regarded  (and  regards)  Him  as  a  sort  of 
Man,  and  has  taught  us  that  a  close  and  vital  union 
exists  between  Him  and  Nature ;  and  yet  we  are  apt  to 
be  lost  in  the  whirlpool  of  Pantheism — to  think  of  the 
Deity  as  One  "  whose  body  Nature  is,"  if  we  give  up 
the  old  view  of  God  which  holds  that  He  exists  apart 
from  and  above  the  world. 

What  is  needed  above  all  things  is  a  philosophy 
which  will  reconcile  the  old  and  the  new  views  ;  which, 
while  it  teaches  God's  immanence  in  Nature,  also  as- 


*  "  Science  and  Culture,"  pages  268-270.     D.  Appleton  &  Co., 
1882. 

f  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  February,  1887,  p.  503. 


30    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

serts  His  transcendental  character ;  and  the  Berkeleyan 
system  seems  to  me  to  afford  at  least  the  basis  for  such 

a  philosophy. 

Canon  Fremantle  says :  "  God  may  be  conceived  of 
as  transcendental— that  is,  as  transcending  all  the  visi- 
ble cognizable  universe,  as  existing  apart  from  it  and 
working  upon  it  from  without ;  or,  as  immanent,  dwell- 
ing within  it  as  its  moral  and  spiritual  center,  its  guid- 
ing force.     The  two  ideas  are  by  no  means  incompati- 
ble ;  they  are  both  of  them  expressed  in  Scripture,  and 
it  would  probably  be  a  great  spiritual  loss  so  to  dwell 
upon  one  of  them  as  to  exclude  the  other.     But  it  is 
certain  that  the  thought  of  a  transcendental  God  deal- 
ing with  the  world  ah  extra  has  been  dwelt  upon  in  the 
past  in  such  a  way  as  to  exclude  the  thought  of  an  im- 
manent God  working  upon  the  world  from  within.     It 
is  certain,  also,  that  this  idea  of  a  transcendental  God 
is  one  which  by  seeming  to  imply  continual  interference 
with  the  regular  course  of  the  world  is  peculiarly  diffi- 
cult to  grasp  in  a  scientific  age."*     It  is  certain  that 
not  only  has  the  idea  of  a  transcendental  God  been 
dwelt  upon  to  the  exclusion  of  the  idea  of  a  God  imma- 
nent in  Nature,  but  even  a  lower  view  prevails  among 
many  otherwise  well-informed  people,  especially  among 
the  laity.     What  Prof.  Fiske  says  about  his  idea  of 
God  when  lie  was  five  years  of  age  is  true  of  many 
more  matured  notions.     "  I  imagined  a  narrow  office," 
he  says,  "  just  over  the  zenith,  with  a  tall  standing  desk 
running   lengthwise,  upon   which   lay  several   ledgers 
bound  in  coarse  leather.     There  wTas  no  roof  over  this 


*  Fremantle's  Barapton  Lectures,  1883,  "  The  World  as  the  Sub- 
ject of  Redemption,"  p.  17. 


GOD  ANT)  NATURE.  31 

office,  and  the  walls  rose  scarcely  five  feet  from  the 
floor,  so  that  a  person  standing  at  the  desk  could  look 
out  upon  the  whole  world.  There  were  two  persons  at 
the  desk,  and  one  of  them  a  tall,  slender  man,  of  aqui- 
line features,  wearing  spectacles,  with  a  pen  in  his  hand 
and  another  behind  his  ear,  was  God.  The  other  was 
an  attendant  angel.  Both  were  diligently  watching  the 
deeds  of  men  and  recording  them  in  the  ledgers."  * 
Most  men  doubtless  entertain  some  such  notion  of 
God  as  this  at  some  period  of  their  lives,  and  in  my 
own  case  it  clung  to  me  for  quite  a  while  after  I 
began  the  study  of  theology.  When  I  realized  that 
"  God  is  without  body,  parts,  or  passions  " — pure,  invis- 
ible, intangible  Spirit— I  experienced  a  painful  shock 
which  lasted  for  several  days,  and  which  others  of  my 
acquaintance  have  experienced  when  they  have  been 
made  to  realize  the  same  deep  truth.  But,  of  course,  it 
would  be  said  just  here,  "  Only  half-educated  people 
hold  the  low  view  of  God  just  stated";  and  there  is 
truth  in  this  assertion,  yet  I  am  thoroughly  convinced 
that  men's  early  notions  of  God,  in  many  cases,  cling  to 
them  with  a  more  or  less  firm  grip  through  life,  and 
unconsciously  influence  their  philosophizing  on  this  sub- 
ject. While,  therefore,  they  do  not  hold  the  anthropo- 
morphic conception  in  all  its  crudeness,  as  stated  by 
Prof.  Fiske,  yet  their  notion  of  a  Personal  God  is  so 
inextricably  blended  with  the  idea  of  a  Man-God — a 
Bodily-God — that  it  vitiates  much  of  their  reasoning 
on  this  ubject. 

The  doctrine  of  God's  personality  undoubtedly  con- 
tains a  great  and  indispensable  truth  ;  it  emphasizes  the 


*"  Idea  of  God,"  p.  116. 


32    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

fact  that  He  is  Intelligent  Power ;  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  we  should  express  His  personality  as  Christ  did 
when  he  said,  "  God  is  Spirit."  At  any  rate,  throughout 
this  work  I  shall  use  the  word  "  God "  to  denote  the 
Infinite  Spirit  who  resides  in  and  presides  over  the  ma- 
terial world ;  and  if  I  be  asked  to  illustrate  my  idea 
more  clearly,  I  can  not  do  it  better  than  by  citing  Charles 
Kingsley's  remark  that  "souls  secrete  their  bodies  as 
snails  do  their  shells."  God  secretes  physical  Nature  as 
the  snail  secretes  its  shell ;  and,  although  this  illustra- 
tion not  only  fails  to  illustrate  perfectly,  but  also  savors 
of  Pantheism,  I  know  of  no  more  perfect  illustration 
(for  what  can  illustrate  the  Infinite  ?),  and  I  can  simply 
assert  that  it  is  not  intended  to  teach  Pantheism. 

But  if  Canon  Fremantle's  assertion  that  the  notion 
of  a  transcendental  God  is  not  incompatible  with  that 
of  an  immanent  God  be  true  (and  I  think  it  is  true), 
I  can  scarcely  formulate  this  idea  of  God  otherwise  than 
as  I  have  attempted  to  do. 

The  physical  universe,  according  to  my  view,  floats, 
so  to  speak,  in  an  ocean  of  Spirit ;  this  infinite  Spirit 
permeates  somewhat  as  the  ether  is  supposed  to  perme- 
ate all  things,  sustains  all  things,  transcends  all  things, 
and  is  essential  intelligence. 

But,  before  saying  anything  more  on  this  subject,  I 
must  glance  at  the  third  and  last  view  of  Being  which 
it  is  possible  to  hold,  viz.,  the  Agnostic  theory.  If  I 
understand  Agnosticism,  it  teaches  that  mind  and  matter 
are  neither  of  them  real  substances,  but  only  passing 
rnanifestations  of  an  unknown  and  unknowable  reality  ; 
are  mere  bubbles  on  the  great  ocean  of  Being,  which  ap- 
pear for  a  little  while  and  then  vanish  away. 

"  The  Unknowable,"  says  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  the 


GOD  AND  NATURE.  33 

acknowledged  authority  on  this  subject,  "  as  manifested 
to  us  within  the  limits  of  Consciousness  in  the  shape  of 
Feeling,  being  no  less  inscrutable  than  the  Unknowable 
as  manifested  beyond  the  limits  of  Consciousness  in 
other  shapes  we  approach  no  nearer  to  understanding 
the  last  by  rendering  it  into  the  first,"  and  hence  he 
concludes  that  "  our  only  course  is  to  recognize  our 
symbols  ('  Mind '  and  '  Matter ')  as  symbols  only  of  some 
form  of  Power  absolutely  and  forever  unknown  to  us."  * 

In  the  first  quotation  Mr.  Spencer  rejects  Idealism  ; 
in  the  second  he  defines  and  accepts  Agnosticism. 

AYe  have  already  seen  that  Prof.  Fiske — a  Spen- 
cerian,  when  not  a  Fiskean — thinks  that  the  Infinite 
Power  of  which  the  universe  is  the  multiform  manifes- 
tation is  by  no  means  so  unknowable  as  Mr.  Spencer 
considers  it.  On  the  contrary,  he  says  not  only  that 
"  Deity  is  knowable  just  in  so  far  as  it  is  manifested  to 
consciousness  through  the  phenomenal  world,"  but,  fur- 
ther, that  "there  is  a  reasonableness  in  the  universe 
such  as  to  indicate  that  the  Deity  is  psychical."  This 
is  precisely  my  own  view.  "  If  there  were  not  intelli- 
gence at  the  root  of  things,  it  could  not  be  turned  up  as 
the  crown  of  the  development  of  life  "  ;  and  since  this 
Intelligence,  as  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  is  coextensive 
with  the  universe  ;  since  it  manifests  itself  to  us  and  in 
us,  we  must  believe  that  so  far  we  have  a  true  knowl- 
edge of  Deity,  although  this  knowledge  is  not  com- 
plete— that  is,  it  is  not  u  a  knowledge  coextensive  in 
every  feature  with  its  subject."  However,  if  any  Agnos- 
tic object  to  this  view,  then  I  would  take  an  entirely 
different  position.     "  You  admit,"  I  would  say,  "  that 

*  Spencer's  "  Principles  of  Psychology,"  vol.  i,  pp.  159,  162. 


34    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

any  theory — Materialistic,  Idealistic,  or  Agnostic — which, 
may  be  formulated  on  the  subject  in  hand  must  be  only 
a  speculation,  a  working  hypothesis,*  and  hence  you 
must  admit  that  one  has  a  right  to — nay,  must — adopt 
whatever  hypothesis  seems  to  him  to  satisfy  all  the  de- 
mands of  the  case.  The  Idealistic  view  seems  the  most 
rational  to  my  mind — it  alone,  I  think,  satisfactorily  ex- 
plains the  reasonableness  everywhere  manifested  in 
Nature,  and  so  I  adopt  it,  granting  you  the  same  privi- 
lege of  choice." 

Two  facts  recognized  by  the  best  physical  science  of 
the  day  seem  to  lend  confirmation  to  the  Idealistic  view  : 

First,  as  Prof.  Huxley  so  ably  and  clearly  shows,  the 
material  "  atom  "  can  not  stand  a  close  and  searching  an- 
alysis, but  must  be  regarded  as  a  hypothetical  entity. 

Second,  while  "  material  force  "  shares  the  same 
fate,  yet  we  ourselves  are  powers,  as  consciousness  dem- 
onstrates, and  hence  we  have  a  right  to  argue  from 
the  nature  of  the  Self -Power  as  revealed  in  conscious- 
ness to  the  Non-Self-Power  manifested  around  us.  This 
argument  need  not  be  complicated  by  any  consideration 
of  the  freedom  of  the  human  will.  Whether  the  will 
be  absolutely  free  or  not  (no  one  believes  this  f ),  all  must 
admit  the, fact  that  it  is  a  force — a  power — and  from  it 
alone  can  we  form  any  notion  of  force.  While,  there- 
fore, we  are  landed  in  hopeless  difficulties  if,  with  the 
Materialist,  we  look  outside  ourselves  and  analyze  Na- 
ture as  though  it  were  an  absolutely  independent,  self- 
existent  machine,  yet  if  we  turn  the  eye  inward  and 
contemplate  Self  we  may  get,  first,  an  idea  of  Being ; 


*  Huxley's  "  Science  and  Culture,"  p.  270. 
t  Canon  Row,  "  Present  Day  Tracts,"  No.  30. 


GOB  AND  NATURE.  35 

secondly,  an  idea  of  Power  ;  and,  thirdly,  an  idea  of  In- 
telligence ;  and  with  these  we  may  proceed  to  formulate 
a  view  of  the  world  which  none  can  destroy  and  few 
will  attack.  Such  a  view  would  be  somewhat  as  fol- 
lows : 

Spirit — i.  e.,  Intelligent  Power — is  the  only  Eternal 
Absolute  Substance.  Nature  is  an  outward  and  visible 
sign  of  this  inward-underlying-Energy  or  Being.  Its 
phenomena  are  naught  else  than  objectified  modes  of 
the  Eternal  I  Am  ;  the  forces  of  Nature  are  naught  else 
than  different  manifestations  of  one  Divine  Will ;  the 
laws  of  Nature,  naught  else  than  the  regular  modes  of 
operation  of  that  will,  unchangeable  because  He  is  un- 
changeable.* 

The  great  doctrine  of  the  "  Correlation  of  Forces," 
so  triumphantly  established  by  modern  Science,  con- 
firms this  view.  It  means  simply  that  what  we  call 
"forces  of  Nature"  are  different  forms  of  one  and  the 
same  thing.  Thus  the  "  force  "  which  causes  a  stone  to 
fall  to  the  Earth  ("  gravity  "),  the  "  force"  by  which 
two  gases  unite  to  produce  the  dew-drop  ("  chemical 
affinity  "),  the  "  force  "  which  causes  the  grass  to  grow 
("  Life  "),  and  Man  to  think  ("  Mind  "),  are  all  streams 
issuing  from  one  fountain-head  ;  and  that  fountain-head 
is  believed  to  be  Spiritual  or  psychical  in  its  nature, 
since  otherwise  the  reasonableness  everywhere  displayed 
in  the  universe  is  inexplicable. 

The  Evolution  of  the  idea  of  God  thus  imperfectly 
sketched  will  be  further  considered  in  the  chapter  on 

*  Prof.  Joseph  Le  Conte,  "  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Re- 
ligious Thought,"  p.  283.     Cf.  Prof.  Winchell's  admirable  paper  on 
"  Speculative  Consequences  of  Evolution,"  in  University  of  Michi- 
gm  Philosophical  Papers,  Second  Series,  No.  2. 
3 


36    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

u  Evolution  and  the  Trinity,"  and  so  I  need  only  say 
that  Prof.  Fiske,*  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  f  Sir  John 
Lubbock,;):  Dr.  E.  B.  Tylor,  and  others,  have  laid  at  least 
the  foundation  of  a  true  theory  of  the  development  of 
ideas  of  Deity.  I  say  "  at  least  the  foundation,"  for  we 
may  not  accept  either  or  all  of  their  theories  in  toto. 

*  "  Idea  of  God."  %  "  Origin  of  Civilization,"  chaps,  v-vii 

f  "  Sociology,"  I,  chaps.  xx-xxvi. 


CHAPTER    II. 

man's  oeigin  according  to  science. 

"  Eveetbody  nowadays,"  says  a  brilliant  writer, 
"  talks  about  Evolution.  Like  Electricity,  the  Cholera- 
germ,  Woman's  rights,  the  great  mining  boom,  and  the 
Eastern  question,  it  is  '  in  the  air.'  It  pervades  society 
everywhere  with  its  subtile  essence ;  it  infects  small 
talk  with  its  peculiar  catchwords  and  slang  phrases  ;  it 
even  permeates  that  last  stronghold  of  rampant  Philis- 
tinism, the  third  leader  in  the  penny  papers.  Every- 
body believes  he  knows  all  about  it  and  discusses  it  as 
glibly  as  he  discusses  the  points  of  race-horses  he  has 
never  seen,  the  charms  of  peeresses  he  has  never  spoken 
to,  and  the  demerits  of  authors  he  has  never  read. 
Everybody  is  aware,  in  a  dim  and  nebulous  semi-con- 
scious fashion,  that  it  was  all  invented  by  the  late 
Mr.  Darwin,  and  reduced  to  a  system  by  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer,  don't  you  know,  and  a  lot  more  of  those  scien- 
tific fellows.  It  is  generally  understood  in  the  best-in- 
formed circles  that  Evolutionism  consists  for  the  most 
part  in  a  belief  about  Nature  at  large  essentially  similar 
to  that  applied  by  Topsy  to  her  own  origin  and  early 
history. 

"It  is  conceived,  in  short,  that  most  things  'growed.' 
Especially  is  it  known  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Evolu- 


38    EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

tionists  as  a  body,  we  are  all  of  ns  ultimately  descended 
from  men  with  tails,  who  were  the  final  offspring  and 
improved  edition  of  the  common  gorilla. 

"  It  is  scarcely  necessary,"  our  author  adds,  "  to  in- 
form the  intelligent  reader,  who,  of  course,  differs  fun- 
damentally from  that  inferior  class  of  human  beings 
known  to  all  of  us  in  our  own  minds  as  '  other  people,' 
that  almost  every  point  in  the  catalogue  thus  briefly 
enumerated  is  a  popular  fallacy  of  the  wildest  description. 

"Mr.  Darwin  did  not  invent  Evolution  any  more 
than  George  Stephenson  invented  the  steam-engine,  or 
Mr.  Edison  the  electric  telegraph.  We  are  not  descended 
from  men  with  tails  any  more  than  we  are  descended 
from  Indian  elephants.  There  is  no  evidence  that  we 
have  anything  in  particular  more  than  the  remotest 
fiftieth  cousinship  with  our  poor  relation— the  West 
African  gorilla. 

"  Science  is  not  in  search  of  'a  missing  link'  ;  few 
links  are  anywhere  missing,  and  those  are  for  the  most 
part  wholly  unimportant  ones.  If  we  found  the  imagi- 
nary link  in  question,  he  would  not  be  a  monkey,  nor 
yet  in  any  way  a  tailed  man."  * 

As  an  illustration  of  this  profound  ignorance  of  the 
nature,  scope,  and  truth  of  Evolution,  even  among  those 
who  are  supposed  to  be  very  learned  people,  I  may 
mention  the  fact  that  an  eminent  Doctor  of  Divinity  in 
a  city  in  which  I  once  lived,  said  in  a  public  lecture, 
"  When  a  crab  develops  into  a  monkey  and  a  monkey 
into  a  man,  I  will  accept  Evolution  "  !  And  this  absurd 
ignorance  passes  for  learning !  Hence  it  is  necessary  to 
briefly  state  the  nature  and  scope  of  Evolution. 

*  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  March,  1888,  pp.  636,  637. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.     39 

Prof.  Joseph  Le  Conte,  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia, thus  defines  Evolution  :  "  Evolution  is  (1)  con- 
tinuous prorjressive  change,  (2)  according  to  certain 
laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of  resident  forces ." 

The  first  part  of  the  definition  is  well  illustrated  in 
the  development  of  the  individual.  Each  one  of  us 
is  an  evolution.  We  begin  our  existence  as  a  minute 
germ,  which  adds  cell  to  cell,  tissue  to  tissue,  organ  to 
organ,  and  function  to  function,  until  we  are  finally 
evolved  as  infants ;  and  then  we  continue  to  develop 
into  men  and  women.  Here  we  see  "  progressive 
change "  ;  and  this  happens  according  to  certain  laws 
which  are,  generally  speaking,  three,  viz.,  the  Law  of 
Differentiation,  the  Law  of  Progress  of  the  Whole,  and 
the  Law  of  Cyclical  Movement. 

The  Law  of  Differentiation  simply  means  the  law 
of  divergence,  and  is  illustrated  by  the  development 
of  the  acorn  into  the  oak.  The  tree  begins  as  a  little 
seed,  and  by  successive  branching  and  rebranching, 
each  branch  taking  a  different  direction  and  all  growing 
wider  and  wider  apart  (differentiating),  it  finally  stands 
forth  as  monarch  of  the  forest.  So,  too,  with  the  plant 
and  animal  kingdoms.  Birds  and  reptiles,  or  fishes  and 
reptiles,  for  instance,  started  from  a  common  stock  or 
root,  and  by  successive  branching  and  rebranching,  each 
branch  taking  a  different  direction,  and  all  growing 
wider  and  wider  apart  (differentiating)  the  movement 
has  at  last  resulted  in  the  present  bird,  reptile,  and  fish 
classes.  Of  course,  in  this  process,  during  the  long 
time  of  development,  many  intermediate  forms — "  con- 
necting links" — would  die  out,  just  as  the  buds  and 
branches  of  a  tree  die  and  disappear ;  and  so  the  con- 
necting links  between  bird  and  reptile,  fish  and  reptile, 


40    EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

man  and  the  lower  animal,  may  be  forever  lost ;  yet  this 
fact  is  quite  unimportant :  evolution  rests  on  a  different 
and  more  solid  basis. 

Each  branch  of  the  bird  and  reptile  classes  has  been 
traced  back  to  the  point  where  they  shade  into  each 
other,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  whether  we  should 
call  the  iirst  known  bird  a  reptilian-bird  or  a  bird-like 
reptile,  and  the  significance  of  this  fact  can  not  be  mis- 
understood by  the  thoughtful  mind.  But  the  half  hath 
not  been  spoken. 

There  are  myriads  of  little  creatures  which  may  be 
called  plant-animals  or  animal-plants  *  for  there  are 
just  as  many  reasons  for  naming  them  plants  as  there 
are  for  calling  them  animals  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  just  as  many  reasons  for  classing  them  among 
animals  as  there  are  for  considering  them  plants. 

The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  irresistible  that  "the 
difference  between  animal  and  plant  is  one  of  degree 
rather  than  of  hind  /  and  the  problem  whether,  in  a 
given  case,  an  organism  is  an  animal  or  a  plant,  may  be 
essentially  insoluble."  * 

Suppose,  then,  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  history 
of  life  on  earth,  there  existed  creatures  with  plant-animal 
(or  animal-plant)  natures,  which  began  to  develop  the  one 
or  the  other  side  of  such  nature ;  by  successive  branching 
and  rebranching,  each  branch  taking  a  different  direction 
and  all  growing  wider  and  wider  apart  (differentiating), 
we  would  in  due  time  be  presented  with  the  plant  and 
animal  kingdoms  as  we  now  have  them.  This  is  what 
is  meant  by  the  Law  of  Differentiation  in  the  sphere  of 
living  organisms. 

*  Huxley,  "  Science  and  Culture,"  p.  186. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.     41 

But  can  we  go  further?  Can  it  be  shown  that  Life 
itself  has  been  developed  from  some  lower  form  of 
force  ?  There  are  two  radically  different  views,  as  is 
well  known,  on  this  subject :  one  holding  that  Life  was 
an  essentially  new  force  infused  into  Nature  at  a  certain 
point  in  the  process  of  evolution ;  the  other  claiming 
that  Life  is  only  another  manifestation  of  that  Energy 
which  on  a  lower  plane  is  called  "  gravity  "  or  "  chemi- 
cal affinity." 

In  support  of  the  first  view  it  is  urged  that  Life  can 
not  now  be  produced  by  any  combination  of  physical 
and  chemical  forces ;  it  must  come  from  a  living  germ. 
But,  in  answer  to  this,  Evolution  urges  that,  in  the 
beginning,  the  earth  was  in  a  different  condition 
from  what  it  now  is,  and  hence  combinations  of  lower 
forces  or  manifestations  of  the  one  eternal  Energy  may 
have  occurred  then  which  never  can  occur  again  in  the 
history  of  terrestrial  life.  Evolution  must,  of  course, 
insist  on  this  view,  and  I  for  one  think  it  highly  rational 
and  probable,  and  see  no  more  Materialism  or  Atheism 
in  it  than  in  that  which  holds  that  Life  was  specially 
created — i.  e.,  was  a  new  force  infused  into  Nature  at  a 
given  time  ;  for,  even  if  we  grant  that  Life  was  produced 
by  a  combination  of  lower  forces,  under  peculiar  con- 
ditions, the  question  inevitably  arises,  Whence  came 
those  forces  and  peculiar  conditions  f  This  takes  us  to 
the  root  of  this  whole  matter — to  the  time  when  "  the 
earth  was  without  form  and  void,"  when  only  a  mighty 
cloud  of  atoms  filled  the  realms  of  universal  space. 
Further  back  than  this  Science  can  not  take  us ;  here 
the  mighty  evolution  of  things  commences.  Beginning 
with  this  original  nebula  or  cloud  of  atoms,  with  its  in- 
herent forces,  evolutionists  argue  that  by  branching  and 


42    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY, 

rebranching,  each  branch  taking  a  different  direction 
and  all  growing  wider  and  wider  apart  (differentiating) 
the  universe  in  all  its  magnificence  and  complexity  has 
been  produced.  And  this  is  what  is  meant  by  the  Law 
of  Differentiation  as  applied  in  evolutionary  philosophy. 
The  second  Law  is  that  of  Progress  of  the  Whole. 
"  Many  imagine/'  says  Prof.  Le  Conte,  "  that  progress 
is  the  one  law  of  evolution  ;  in  fact,  that  evolution  and 
progress  are  coextensive  and  convertible  terms.  They 
imagine  that  in  evolution  the  movement  must  be  up- 
ward and  onward  in  all  parts ;  that  degeneration  is  the 
opposite  of  evolution.  This  is  far  from  the  truth. 
There  is,  doubtless,  in  evolution,  progress  to  higher  and 
highes  planes,  but  not  along  every  line  nor  in  every 
part ;  for  this  would  be  contrary  to  the  law  of  differen- 
tiation. It  is  only  progress  of  the  whole  organic  'king- 
dom in  its  entirety  P  An  illustration  will  make  this 
clear :  "  A  growing  tree  branches  and  again  branches 
in  all  directions,  some  branches  going  upward,  some 
sidewise,  and  some  downward — anywhere,  everywhere, 
for  light  and  air ;  but  the  whole  tree  grows,  ever  taller 
in  its  higher  branches,  larger  in  the  circumference  of 
its  outstretching  arms,  and  more  diversified  in  structure. 
Even  so  the  tree  of  life,  by  the  law  of  differentiation, 
branches  and  rebranches  continually  in  all  directions, 
some  branches  going  upward  to  higher  planes  (progress), 
some  pushing  horizontally,  neither  rising  nor  sinking, 
but  only  going  farther  from  the  generalized  origin 
(specialization) ;  some  going  downward  (degeneration), 
anywhere,  everywhere,  for  an  unoccupied  place  in  the 
economy  of  Nature,  but  the  whole  tree  grows  ever 
higher  in  its  highest  parts,  grander  in  its  proportions, 
and  more  complexly  diversified  in  its  structure." 


MAN'S   ORIGIN  ACCORDING    TO  SCIENCE.      43 

The  third  Law  of  Evolution  is  that  called  the  Law 
of  Cyclical  Movement.  In  other  words,  although  the 
evolutionary  movement  has  ever  been  onward  and  up- 
ward, yet  it  has  not  traveled  at  a  uniform  rate  in  the 
whole,  much  less  in  the  parts,  but  it  has  moved  in  suc- 
cessive cycles.  "  The  tide  of  evolution  rose  ever  higher 
and  higher,  without  ebb,  but  it  nevertheless  came  in  suc- 
cessive waves,  each  higher  than  the  preceding  and  over- 
borne by  the  succeeding."  This  successive  culmination 
of  higher  and  higher  classes  of  beings  has  also  been 
aptly  compared  to  a  growing  tree — to  the  flowering 
and  fruiting  of  successive  higher  and  higher  branches. 

"  Each  uppermost  branch,  under  the  genial  heat 
and  light  of  direct  sunshine,  received  in  abundance,  by 
reason  of  position,  grew  rapidly  ;  but  quickly  dwindled 
when  overshadowed  by  still  higher  branches,  which,  in 
their  turn,  monopolized  for  a  time  the  precious  sun- 
shine." But  when  each  ruling  class  declined  in  im- 
portance, it  did  not  perish  altogether,  but  continued  in 
a  subordinate  position — a  degenerated  state — a  sort  of 
stepping-stone  to  higher  things — an  Ichabod  of  Evo- 
lution. 

Thus,  the  first  two  sections  of  our  definition  of  Evo- 
lution, namely,  that  it  is  a  progressive  change  according 
to  the  laws  of  differentiation,  cyclical  movement,  and 
progress  of  the  whole,  have  been  explained.  The  last 
section,  which  teaches  that  these  changes  are  produced 
by  forces  residing  in  the  organisms  themselves,  is  per- 
haps the  most  important.  But  I  dispose  of  this  part  of 
the  subject  in  the  judicious  and  philosophic  words  of 
Prof.  Le  Conte.  "  When  the  Evolutionist,"  he  says, 
"  speaks  of  the  forces  that  determine  progressive  changes 
in  organic  forms  as  resident  or  inherent,  all  that  he 


44    EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

means,  or  ought  to  mean,  is  that  they  are  resident  in 
the  same  sense  as  all  natural  forces  are  resident ;  in  the 
same  sense  that  the  vital  forces  of  the  embryo  are  resi- 
dent in  the  embryo — in  other  words,  they  are  natural, 
not  supernatural.  This  does  not,  of  course,  touch  that 
deeper,  that  deepest  of  all  questions,  viz.,  the  essential 
nature  and  origin  of  natural  forces  /  how  far  they 
are  independent  and  self-existent,  and  how  far  they 
are  only  modes  of  Divine  Energy.  This  is  a  question 
of  philosophy,  not  of  science."  *  And  I  have  given 
my  views  on  this  subject  in  the  first  chapter  of  this 
work. 

Having  now  given  an  idea  of  the  laws  and  scope  of 
evolution,  I  pass  to  its  factors  or  causes.  But  I  shall 
mention  only  the  five  chief  factors  so  far  ascertained. 
First,  there  is  Environment  or  surrounding  conditions, 
climate,  food,  light,  water,  etc.  When  an  oyster,  for 
instance,  is  transferred  from  the  shores  of  England 
into  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  its  shell  undergoes  certain 
changes  which  are  due  to  a  change  of  external  condi- 
tions. When  Ohio  sheep  are  transferred  to  Texas,  in  a 
few  years  their  wool  loses  the  distinctive  quality  it 
formerly  had,  and  takes  on  a  new  character  belonging 
to  the  breeds  of  Texas.  Indeed,  the  common  fact  that 
one  has  to  become  "  acclimated  "  to  a  new  region  illus- 
trates this,  as  some  believe,  u  the  primordial  factor  of 
organic  Evolution  " — e.  g.,  Spencer,  Kiley.f 

A  second  cause  of  Evolution  is  use  and  disuse  of 
organs.  The  athlete  develops  his  muscles  by  exercise, 
while  he  reduces  them  when  he  deserts  the  gymnasium 

*  "  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,"  pp.  8-31. 
f  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  February,  1889,  p.  489. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.     45 

or  the  Held  for  the  study.  The  giraffe  has,  probably, 
acquired  its  long  neck  by  constant  reaching  up  to  the 
boughs  of  trees  ;  the  monkey  has  acquired  its  opposable 
thumb  by  constant  grasping  at  the  neighboring  branches ; 
and  the  serpent  has  acquired  its  sinuous  shape  by  con- 
stant wriggling  through  the  grass  of  the  meadows.  At 
least,  this  was  the  view  of  the  great  French  naturalist, 
Lamarck,  who  flourished  during  the  first  half  of  this 
century,  and  the  two  factors  in  question  are  now  gen- 
erally recognized  by  scientists.  To  these  Mr.  Charles 
Darwin  added  two  other  factors,  namely,  "  Natural 
Selection  "  and  "  Sexual  Selection."  The  first  simply 
means  that,  among  the  manifold  varieties  of  plants  and 
animals  which  are  constantly  originated  in  Nature,  some 
are  better  adapted  to  surrounding  conditions  than  are 
others,  and  by  virtue  of  this  constitutional  advantage 
they  survive  in  "  the  struggle  for  existence "  which 
rages  everywhere  in  the  animal  and  vegetable  world, 
while  their  weaker  fellows  are  killed  off,  and  thus  bet- 
ter varieties,  species,  genera,  races,  etc.,  are  produced. 
Illustrations  of  this  law  will  occur  to  every  mind.  The 
little  pig  ("runt"),  for  instance,  which  is  beaten  away 
from  the  trough  by  his  more  vigorous  relations  until  he 
dies  of  abuse  and  starvation,  affords  a  very  common  in- 
stance of  the  operation  of  "  Natural  Selection." 

6t  Sexual  Selection  "  means  that  choice  of  the  strong- 
est and  most  attractive  males  which  the  females  gener- 
ally exercise  in  selecting  family  partners.  "  Among  all 
animals,"  says  Mr.  Darwin,  "  there  is  a  struggle  for  the 
possession  of  the  female.  Hence  the  females  have  the 
opportunity  of  selecting  one  out  of  several  males,  on 
the  supposition  that  their  mental  capacity  suffices  for 
such  a  choice."     This  being  generally  true,  the  females 


46    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

select  the  strongest  and  most  attractive,  and  thus  im- 
prove  and  diversify  their  species.  Perhaps  our  "  society 
belles,"  who  select  the  "  dudes,"  instead  of  men  of  supe- 
rior intellectual  and  moral  character,  might  learn  a 
lesson  from  their  humbler  relations.  To  these  four 
factors — modification  by  environment,  modification  by 
use  and  disuse  of  organs,  Natural  Selection,  and  Sexual 
Selection — must  be  added  that  formulated  by  Dr.  Ro- 
manes, called  "  Physiological  Selection."  This  eminent 
scientist  observed  and  emphasized  the  fact  that  the  re- 
productive organ  is,  of  all  other  organs,  the  most  subject 
to  variation  in  its  degrees  and  kinds  of  fertility,  and 
this,  he  thinks,  explains  the  origin  of  many  so-called 
"  species." 

Owing  to  the  extreme  variability  of  the  reproductive 
organ,  radical  variations  from  the  parental  type  would 
occur,  by  which  the  offspring  would  be  rendered  infer- 
tile with  the  parent  stock,  and  yet  they  would  be  per- 
fectly fertile  among  themselves.  Here,  then,  we  would 
have  the  beginning  of  a  (so-called)  species.  To  illus- 
trate :  the  common  dog  was  made  by  a  mixture  of 
several  species  of  wolf.  Suppose  that,  in  the  beginning, 
there  occurred  some  variation  in  the  wolf  type  due  to  a 
change  in  the  reproductive  organ  by  which  a  "  doggish  " 
offspring  was  produced  which  was  infertile  with  the 
parental  stock,  but  fertile  with  animals  which  varied 
in  the  same  direction.  A  cross  between  these,  which 
would  naturally  and  necessarily  happen,  would,  of 
course,  produce  a  more  "  doggish  "  creature,  which,  in 
turn,  would  produce  another,  and  so  on,  until  the  com- 
mon dog  would  be  the  result.  It  thus  appears  that 
"  Physiological  Selection  "  throws  much  light  upon  the 
origin  of  species,  and  especially  upon  the  knotty  ques- 


MAR'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.     47 

tion  of  hybridism.  The  common  objection,  based  upon 
the  fact  that  a  cross  between  certain  animals  (an  ass 
and  a  horse,  for  instance)  produces  a  hybrid  (a  mule), 
which  is  incapable  of  breeding,  has  received  not  a  little 
attention  from  scientists,  and  Physiological  Selection  an- 
swers, to  a  very  great  extent,  this  objection.  By  virtue 
of  the  operation  of  this  law,  infertility  is  produced  be- 
tween certain  branches  of  the  animal  kingdom,  and 
these  continue  to  grow  farther  and  farther  apart  until 
the  possibility  of  interbreeding  them  becomes  as  hope- 
less as  the  attempt  to  unite  the  ends  of  a  tree's  boughs ; 
we  must  go  down  the  trunk,  begin  at  the  bottom,  and 
work  upward.  But  the  thoughtful  reader  is,  of  course, 
asking :  "  What  makes  the  reproductive  organ,  or,  in- 
deed, any  other  organ,  vary  from  its  original  type  f 
What  is  \h.z jprime  factor  in  this  process?"  To  which 
I  reply :  It  is  just  here  that  those  differences  of  opinion 
arise  which  half -informed  people  —  but  only  these  — 
fancy  are  fatal  to  the  whole  theory  of  evolution,  or 
rather  to  the  fact  of  evolution ;  for  it  should  be  care- 
fully borne  in  mind  that  the  theory  of  evolution  and 
the  fact  of  evolution  are  two  entirely  different  things. 
All,  or  nearly  all,  scientists  accept  the  latter ;  but  there 
are  many  and  different  schools  (Lamarckian,  Darwinian, 
Spencerian,  etc.)  of  evolutionists,  and  these  are  charac- 
terized by  the  advocacy  of  the  different  theories  con- 
cerning the  causes  of  evolution  which  Lamarck,  Dar- 
win, or  Spencer  has  formulated.  I  am  an  evolutionist. 
I  believe  that  man  has  been  evolved,  body  and  soul, 
from  a  lower  animal  form  ;  but  without  accepting  any 
of  the  aforementioned  theories,  I  aim  to  separate  the 
chaff  of  error  from  the  grain  of  truth.  I  believe,  with 
Mr.  Spencer  and  others,  that  "  it  is  as  yet  far  too  soon 


48    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  close  the  inquiry  concerning  the  causes  of  organic 
evolution."  *  Mr.  Spencer's  discussions  on  this  sub- 
ject, together  with  what  Darwin  wrote  in  his  various 
works,  and  what  Semper  wrote  in  his  "  Animal  Life," 
express  the  most  satisfactory  view  of  the  subject ;  while 
Prof.  Riley's  admirable  address  before  the  (1888)  meet- 
ing of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement 
of  Science  is  an  excellent  popular  exposition  of  the 
causes  of  variation.!  A  careful  perusal  of  these  authors 
will — or  ought  to — convince  the  most  skeptical  that  the 
day  is  not  distant  when  a  satisfactory  theory  of  evolution 
will  be  formulated.  But,  however  this  may  be,  let  it  be 
remembered  that  the  fact  of  evolution  is  fully  estab- 
lished and  almost  universally  accepted  by  those  who  are 
authorities  in  science.  Thus,  Prof.  Le  Conte  says: 
"We  are  confident  that  evolution  is  absolutely  certain ; 
not,  indeed,  evolution  as  a  special  theory — Lamarckian, 
Darwinian,  Spencerian— for  these  are  all  more  or  less 
successful  modes  of  explaining  evolution  ;  nor  evolution 
as  a  school  of  thought,  with  its  following  disciples — for 
in  this  sense  it  is  still  in  the  field  of  discussion — but 
evolution  as  a  law  of  derivation  of  forms  from  previous 
forms ;  evolution  as  a  law  of  continuity,  as  a  univei^sal 
law  of  becoming.  .  .  .  The  words  evolutionism  and  evo- 
lutionist ought  not  any  longer  to  be  used,  any  more 
than  gravitationism  and  gravitationist."  % 

Hence  it  would  be  well  for  those  who  fancy  that  an 
explosion  of  Mr.  Darwin's  or  Mr.  Spencer's  theories  is 


*  u 


Popular  Science  Monthly,"  June,  1886,  p.  205.  Cf.  Principles 
of  Biology  I,  Plate  III,  Chapter  viii-xi. 

f  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  February  and  April,  1889. 

*"  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,"  pp. 
65,  66. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  AC  CORDING   TO  SCIENCE.     49 

the  destruction  of  evolution,  to  look  more  carefully  into 
the  subject. 

The  evidences  of  man's  development  from  a  lower 
animal  form  are  derived  chiefly  from  four  sources, 
viz.,  Paleontology,  Morphology,  Variability,  and  Em- 
bryology. 

I.  It  is  a  most  significant  fact  that  the  farther  hack 
in  time  ice  go,  the  simpler  the  forms  of  animal  and 
plant  life  become,  and  those  forms  occur,  in  the  order 
of  their  origination,  just  as  if  they  were  developed  one 
from  another.  The  lowest  and  oldest  form  of  animal 
life  so  far  found  in  the  bowels  of  the  Earth  is  the 
Eozoon*  or  "  Dawn  Animal,"  discovered  and  named 
by  Prof.  J.  W.  Dawson,  of  McGill  University,  Canada. 
Eozoon  "  seems  to  have  been  a  sessile  creature  resting 
on  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  and  covering  its  gelatinous 
body  with  a  thin  crust  of  carbonate  of  lime,  or  lime- 
stone, adding  to  this,  as  it  grew  in  size,  crust  after  crust 
attached  to  each  other  by  numerous  partitions,  and  per- 
forated with  pores  for  the  emission  of  gelatinous  fila- 
ments. ...  In  the  modern  seas,  among  the  multitude  of 
low  forms  of  life  with  which  they  swarm,  occur  some  in 
which  the  animal  matter  is  a  mere  jelly,  almost  without 
distinct  parts  or  organs,  yet  unquestionably  endowed 
with  life  of  an  animal  character."  These  small  and 
often  microscopic  animals  are  not  so  large  as  Eozoon, 
which  somewhat  resembles  them.  Eozoon  is  not  the 
oldest  organism,  but  only  the  oldest  yet  discovered. 
"  The  existence  of  such  creatures,"  says  Prof.  Dawson, 
"  supposes  that  of  other  organisms,  probably  microscopic 

*  "  There  is  much  doubt  now  as  to  the  nature  of  Eozoon,  whether 
organic  or  mineral  in  origin." — Le  Conte. 


50    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  'AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

plants,  on  which  they  could  feed.  No  traces  of  these 
have  been  observed,  though  the  great  quantity  of  car- 
bon in  the  beds  probably  implies  the  existence  of  larger 
sea-weeds.  No  other  form  of  animal  has  yet  been  dis- 
tinctly recognized  in  the  Laurentian  limestones,  but 
there  are  fragments  of  calcareous  matter  which  may 
have  belonged  to  organisms  distinct  from  Eozoon."  *  It 
is  not  necessary  to  my  purpose  to  discuss  either  the 
question  of  organisms  lower  than  the  Eozoon,  though, 
of  course,  on  evolution  principles,  such  must  have 
existed,  or  the  question  whether  such  organisms  were 
developed  from  non-living  matter  (I  have  already 
given  my  opinion  on  this  subject) ;  but  I  may  take 
Eozoon  as  the  starting-point  of  animal  life,  and  coming 
np  the  scale  (see  diagram),  we  notice  that  higher  and 
more  complex  organisms  arise  until  the  progress  ends  in 
man,  "  the  lord  of  creation." 

Beginning  with  the  "  Protozoa  "  (Eozoon,  etc.),  we 
find  Crustaceans,  Corals,  and  Mollusks  ;  then  Fishes  and 
Amphibians ;  then  Keptiles  and  Mammals ;  and,  finally, 
Man.  Of  course,  there  are  many  missing  pages  in  this 
geological  history;  for  instance,  "between  the  time 
when  Eozoon  Canadense  flourished  in  the  Laurentian 
period  and  the  Cambrian  age  a  great  gap  (Huronian 
period,  see  diagram)  evidently  exists  in  our  knowledge 
of  the  succession  of  life  "  (Dawson),  and  this  imperfec- 
tion of  the  geological  record  has,  of  course,  been  cited 
by  anti-evolutionists  as  a  complete  refutation  of  the  doc- 
trine of  descent.  But  there  is  just  about  as  much  reason 
in  this  procedure  as  there  would  be  in  citing  "  the  gap  " 
in  a  book,  some  of  whose  leaves  had  been  torn  out, 

*  Dawson's  "  Story  of  the  Earth  and  Man,"  pp.  23-25. 


MAN'S  ORIGm  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.      51 


Diagram  of  the  Earth's  History. 


Periods. 

Animals. 

Plants. 

'o 

f  Modern. 

Post-pliocene. 

Pliocene. 

Miocene. 
k  Eocene. 

Age  of  Man  and 
Mammals. 

Age  of  Angiosperms 
and  Palms. 

•5  f  Cretaceous. 
0  \  Jurassic. 
g  1  Triassic. 

Age  of  Reptiles. 

Age  of  Cycads 
and  Pines. 

c3 

"0 

r  Permian. 

Carboniferous. 

Devonian. 

Silurian. 

Cambrian. 
L  Huronian. 

Age  of  Amphibians 
and  Fishes. 

Age  of  Acrogens 
and  Gymnosperms. 

0  ^ 
Oh 

Age  of  Mollusks, 
Corals,  and 
Crustaceans. 

Age  of  AlgaB. 

'I   ) 

g  v  Laurentian. 

Age  of  Protozoa, 
Eozoon,  etc. 

Plants  not  deter- 
minable. 

52    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

which  yet  had  an  index  to  show  that  such  leaves  must 
have  once  existed.  We  shall  see  that  Embryology  fur- 
nishes an  index  to  the  book  of  life  which  necessitates 
the  existence  of  the  missing  leaves  in  the  geological 
record.  None  are  more  fully  aware  of  the  imperfec- 
tion of  the  geological  record  than  evolutionists  them- 
selves, and  they  have  successfully  met  all  the  objections 
of  their  opponents.  Thus,  Prof.  Le  Conte,  while  gen- 
erously acknowledging  that  there  is  much  force  in  the 
objection  under  consideration,  disposes  of  it  in  a  most 
satisfactory  manner.  He  gives  several  solutions  of  the 
difficulty,  the  most  conclusive  of  which  is  the  follow- 
ing :  "  The  steps  of  evolution  are  not  uniform.  Near- 
ly all  evolutionists  have  assumed  and  even  insisted  on 
uniformity,  as  the  opposite  of  catastrophism  and  of  su- 
pernaturalism,  and  therefore  as  essential  to  the  idea  of 
evolution.  They  say  that  the  constancy  of  the  action 
of  the  forces  of  change  necessitates  the  uniformity  of 
the  rate  of  change. 

"But,  in  fact,  this  is  not  always  nor  even  usually  true. 
Causes  or  forgoes  are  constant,  but  phenomena  every- 
where and  in  every  department  of  Nature  are  paroxys- 
mal." To  illustrate :  "  Water  running  with  great  re- 
sistance in  small  pipes  is  checked,  but  soon  accumulates 
additional  force,  which  overcomes  the  resistance,  only 
to  be  again  checked,  and  so  on,  and  therefore  runs  in 
pulses.  Now,  the  course  of  evolution  of  the  whole 
earth  may  be  likened  to  such  a  current :  there  are  forces 
of  movement  and  forces  of  resistance — progressive  forces 
and  conservative  forces.  The  progressive  force  is  accu- 
mulative, the  resisting  force  is  constant.  Thus,  in  all 
evolution  or  history,  whether  of  the  earth  or  of  society, 
there  are  periods  of  comparative  quiet  during  which 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.     53 

the  forces  of  change  are  gathering  strength  and  periods 
of  revolution  or  rapid  change,  during  which  these  forces 
show  themselves  in  conspicuous  effects. 

"  The  consequence  is,  that  there  is  an  apparent  break 
(oftentimes)  in  the  continuity  of  life-forms  ;  but  un- 
doubtedly this  is  only  apparent,  and  if  we  could  recover 
the  record,  as  indeed  we  sometimes  do,  we  should  find 
in  all  cases  that  there  is  no  break,  but  only  more  rapid 
rate  of  change  at  these  times."  * 

When  "  the  gaps  "  in  the  geological  record  may  be 
thus  easily  explained,  it  is  surely  folly  to  insist  that  they 
present  insuperable  difficulties.  Prof.  Alexander  Win- 
chell,  of  Ann  Arbor,  summarizes  the  paleontological  evi- 
dence of  evolution  thus : 

"In  spite  of  all  this  (imperfection),  paleontology 
has  been  able  to  establish  the  following  principles : 

u  1.  There  has  been  gradual  improvement  in  the 
structural  rank  of  the  leading  type  of  animals  as  the 
history  advanced  from  age  to  age. 

"  2.  The  earlier  condition  of  each  animal  type  was  a 
comprehensive  one,  in  which  certain  characteristics  of 
two  or  more  families  or  orders  were  united  in  one  spe- 
cies. 

"  3.  The  tendency  of  change  has  been  toward  the 
resolution  of  comprehensive  types,  so  that  the  charac- 
teristics of  each  separate  family  or  order  should  finally 
be  embodied  in  separate  species. 

fk4.  While  this  process  of  resolution  of  comprehen- 
sive types  has  been  in  progress,  still  further  differentia- 
tions and  specializations,  both  in  the  comprehensive  and 
the  resolved  forms,  have  taken  place. 


*  "  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,"  pp.  232-247. 


54    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

"  5.  The  progress  of  discovery  has  gone  so  far  that 
we  have  established  not  only  a  steady  progression  up- 
ward in  the  animal  series  at  large,  but  also  in  several 
ramifications  of  the  series." 

Prof.  Winchell  traces  the  line  of  development  in 
the  Bird,  the  Camel,  and  the  Rhinoceros  series ;  but  to 
avoid,  as  much  as  possible,  the  use  of  technical  terms,  I 
shall  trace  the  evolution  of  the  Horse  only,  which  in- 
stance will  sufficiently  illustrate  the  evolution  of  other 
animals.  "  The  horse,"  savs  Prof.  Le  Conte,  "  came  from 
a  five- toed,  plantigrade  ancestor,  but  we  are  not  able  to 
trace  the  direct  line  of  genesis  quite  so  far.  The  earliest 
stage  we  can  trace  with  certainty,  in  this  line  of  descent, 
is  found  in  the  Eohippus  of  Marsh.  This  was  a  small 
animal,  no  bigger  than  a  fox,  with  three  toes  behind 
and  four  serviceable  toes  in  front,  with  an  additional 
fifth  palm-bone  (splint)  and  perhaps  a  rudimentary  fifth 
toe  like  a  dew-claw.  This  was  in  early  Eocene  times  " 
(see  diagram).  "  Then,  in  later  Eocene,  came  the  (higher 
form)  Orohippus,  which  differs  from  the  last  chiefly  in 
the  disappearance  (absorption)  of  the  rudimentary  fifth 
toe  and  splint.  Next,  in  the  Miocene  (diagram)  came 
the  Mesohippus  and  Miohippus.  These  were  larger 
animals  (about  the  size  of  a  sheep),  and  had  three  serv- 
iceable toes  all  around  ;  but  in  the  former  the  rudiment 
of  a  fourth  splint  in  the  fore-limb  yet  remained.  Then 
in  the  Lower  Pliocene  (diagram)  came  the  Protohippus 
and  Pliohippus.  These  were  still  larger  animals,  being 
about  the  size  of  an  ass.  In  the  former  the  two  side- 
toes  were  shortening  up  and  the  middle  toes  becoming 
larger.  In  the  latter  the  two  side-toes  had  become 
splints.  Lastly,  only  in  the  Quaternary  (latest  forma- 
tion) comes  the  genus  Equus,  or  true  horse.     The  size 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.     55 

of  the  animal  is  become  greater,  the  middle  toe  stronger, 
the  side  splints  smaller;  but  in  the  side  splints  of  the 
modern  horse  we  have  still  remaining  the  evidence  of 
its  three-toed  ancestor.  Similar  gradual  changes  may  be 
traced  in  the  two  bones,  which  have  consolidated  into 
one ;  in  the  teeth,  which  have  become  progressively 
longer  and  more  complex  in  structure,  and  therefore 
better  grinders ;  in  the  position  of  the  heel  and  wrist, 
which  have  become  higher  above-ground ;  in  the  gen- 
eral form,  which  has  become  more  graceful  and  agile  ; 
and,  lastly,  in  the  brain,  which  has  become  progressive- 
ly larger  and  more  complex  in  its  convolutions — to  give 
greater  battery  power — to  work  the  improved  skeletal 
machine."  * 

This  beautiful  instance  of  evolution  illustrates  Prof. 
"Winchell's  remark  that  there  has  been  "not  only  a 
steady  progression  upward  in  the  animal  series  at  large, 
but  also  in  several  separate  ramifications  of  the  series." 
The  first  known  bird  (as  we  have  seen)  may  be  consid- 
ered either  a  reptilian-bird  or  a  bird  -  like  reptile,  so 
nearly  does  it  approach  the  bird  and  reptile  series ;  in 
short,  it  is  "the  connecting  link"  between  these,  and 
they  have  both  been  differentiated  and  developed  from 
this  common  source,  as  Prof.  Winchell  shows.  Lastly, 
he  says :  "  The  tendency  of  fresh  discovery  is  continually 
to  fill  up  pre-existing  gaps.  Serial  successions  are  being 
completed  from  year  to  year ;  connecting  links  are 
coming  to  light ;  terms  thought  misplaced  are  found, 
through  new  discoveries,  to  be  in  proper  successional 
order.  .  .  .  "We  anticipate,  accordingly,  that  in  the 
course  of  time  it  will  be  shown  that  our  earth  has  been 

*  "Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,"  pp.  108-110. 


56    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  abode  of  complete  successions  of  animal  types  lead- 
ing backward  from  each  of  our  modern  generic  or  fam- 
ily groups  by  ever-converging  lines,  toward  ancestral 
centers,  and  from  these  centers  other  lines  pointing 
toward  some  common  center  in  the  remoter  past.  We 
expect  to  see  the  consecutive  terms  in  these  various  se- 
ries graduating  structurally  into  each  other ;  and  every 
characteristic  conformed  and  arranged  as  if  there  had 
been  a  gradual  descent  of  all  our  modern  mammals  along 
a  set  of  diverging  lines  from  some  primitive,  planti- 
grade, five-toed  ancestor. 

"  This  is  the  generalization  which  the  known  facts 
and  the  known  tenor  of  the  facts  authorize  us  to 
draw."  * 

If,  now,  the  radical  skeptic,  deaf  alike  to  the  voice 
of  reason  and  fact,  still  insist  that,  although  the  forms 
of  animal  life  do  occur  in  the  history  of  the  earth  just 
as  if  they  were  developed  out  of  one  another,  yet  we 
can  not  demonstrate  such  development,  we  reply  by 
citing  the  facts  of  embryology  which  Prof.  Winehell 
truly  says  do  "  demonstrate  that  the  derivative  relation 
of  such  terms  as  paleontology  presents  is  an  ever- 
repeated  reality." 

II.  Next,  we  consider  the  Morphological  evidence 
of  evolution — that  is,  the  evidence  afforded  by  a  study 
of  the  structure  of  various  animal  types  ;  and  here  again 
I  follow  Prof.  Winchell,  partly  because  his  summary  of 
evidence  is  brief  and  masterly,  but  especially  because  I 
hope  the  words  of  a  Christian  and  a  practical  scientist 
may  have  more  weight  in  certain  quarters  than  either 
my  own  opinion  or  those  of  agnostic  and  skeptical  natu- 


*  WinchelTs  "  Sparks  from  a  Geologist's  Hammer,''  pp.  339-341. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING    TO  SCIENCE.      57 

ralists.  "  Every  one,"  says  Prof.  Winchell,  "  understands 
what  is  meant  by  saying  one  person  bears  a  family  re- 
semblance to  another.  It  implies  that  there  is  a  blood 
connection  between  them.  In  some  generation  more 
or  less  remote  their  lineage  converges,  and  the  same 
parents  stand  as  common  ancestors  to  both  persons. 
Precisely  the  same  thing  is  involved  in  the  statement 
that  the  dog,  the  wolf,  and  the  jackal  have  a  family  re 
semblance — or  the  cat,  the  lynx,  the  ounce,  and  the 
panther.  The  resemblances  in  these  families  are  not  so 
close  as  in  the  human  family  :  but  they  are  of  the  same 
kind,  and  they  impress  themselves  on  us  in  the  same 
way  and  with  the  same  effect.  The  children  of  John 
Smith  are  quite  certain  to  resemble  their  parents,  and 
may  reproduce  predominantly  traits  of  their  grand 
parents  or  remoter  progenitors." 

This  happens,  of  course,  according  to  the  well-recog- 
nized law  of  heredity.  "  It  is  certainly  safe,"  continues 
Prof.  Winchell,  "  on  grounds  of  natural  evidence,  to 
admit  that  family  resemblances  among  animals,  as 
among  mankind,  imply  community  of  descent. 

"This  principle  achieved,  very  much  is  found  in- 
volved in  it.  Resemblances  of  the  same  nature  as  those 
called  family  resemblances  exist  between  groups  of  ani- 
mals and  plants  quite  widely  differentiated  from  each 
other.  We  do  not  say  the  mouse  and  the  rhinoceros  pos- 
sess a  family  resemblance,  but  it  is  demonstrable  that  they 
do  possess  profound  resemblances  aggregating  vastly 
more  than  all  their  differences.  Their  differences  relate  to 
size,  covering,  habits,  and  other  trivial  circumstances; 
while  their  resemblances  include  skeletal  framework, 
circulatory,  digestive,  respiratory,  and  reproductive  or- 
ganization, as  well  as  the  general  plan,  arrangements, 


58    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

juxtaposition,  connection,  and  coaction  of  these  sys- 
tems, and  all  the  minuter  plan,  substance,  structure,  de- 
velopment, and  action  of  bone,  nerve,  skin,  fibers,  mem- 
branes, etc.  Finally,  both  have  warm  blood,  respire 
air,  and  nourish  their  young  with  milk. 

"  How  can  we  escape  the  conviction  that  these  ani- 
mals, also,  owe  their  amazing  similarity  of  constitu- 
tion to  their  common  descent  from  some  remote  an- 
cestor ? "  * 

If  this  conclusion  seems  startling  to  any  of  my  read- 
ers, it  will  appear  less  so  the  more  they  study  Mor- 
phology 

Thus,  Prof.  Le  Conte  shows,  by  a  comparison  of  the 
fore-limbs  of  mammals,  birds,  reptiles,  and  fishes,  that 
they  are  all  constructed  on  the  same  fundamental  plan. 
He  traces  the  gradual  changes  in  the  collar-bone,  in  the 
position  of  the  elbow,  in  the  bones  of  the  forearm,  in 
the  position  of  the  wrist,  in  the  tread,  number  of  toes, 
modifications  for  flight,  etc.  He  concludes  by  saying 
that,  in  an  early  period  of  the  earth's  history,  "fishes 
were  the  only  representatives  of  the  vertebrate  (back- 
bone) type  of  structure.  The  vertebrate  machine  was 
then  a  swimming-machine.  In  the  course  of  time,  when 
all  was  ready  and  conditions  were  favorable,  reptiles 
were  introduced.  Here,  then,  is  a  new  function— that 
of  locomotion  on  land.  We  want  a  walking-machine. 
Shall  we  have  a  new  organ  for  this  function  ?  No  ; 
the  old  swimming-organ  is  modified  so  as  to  adapt  it  for 
walking.  Time  went  on,  and  birds  were  introduced. 
Here  is  a  new  and  wonderful  function,  that  of  flying  in 
the  air.     We  want  a  flying-machine.     Nature  (unlike 


*  " 


Sparks  from  a  Geologist's  Hammer,"  pp.  333-335. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.     59 

man)  modifies  the  fore-limbs  for  this  new  purpose.  If 
we  must  have  wings,  we  must  sacrifice  fore-legs.  We 
can  not  have  both  without  violating  the  laws  of  Mor- 
phology. 

"  Finally,  ages  again  passed,  and,  when  time  was  fully 
ripe,  man  was  introduced.  Now  we  want  some  part  to 
perform  a  new  and  still  more  wonderful  function.  We 
want  a  hand,  the  willing  and  efficient  servant  of  a  ra- 
tional mind.  But,  if  we  want  hands,  we  must  sacrifice 
feet.  Again,  therefore,  the  fore-limbs  are  modified  for 
this  new  and  exquisite  function.  Thus,  in  the  fin  of 
the  fish,  the  fore-paw  of  a  reptile  or  mammal,  the  wing 
of  a  bird,  and  the  arm  and  hand  of  a  man,  we  have  the 
same  part  variously  modified  for  many  piwjtoses" 
Prof.  Le  Conte,  in  the  chapter  immediately  following 
the  one  just  referred  to,  discusses  the  structures  of  the 
Articulates,  or  jointed  animals,  such  as  worms,  cray- 
fishes, lobsters,  etc.,  and  shows  that,  whether  they  origi- 
nated by  derivation  one  from  another  or  not,  "  it  is 
certain  that  the  structure  of  the  articulate  animals  is  ex- 
actly such  as  would  be  the  case  if  all  these  animals  were 
genetically  connected  and  came  originally  from  a  pri- 
mal form  something  like  one  of  the  lower  Crustaceans, 
or  perhaps  a  marine  worm."  * 

Hence  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  anti-evolutionists  to 
formulate  a  more  rational  theory  of  creation,  which,  we 
feel  sure,  can  not  be  done. 

Such,  then,  is  what  Morphology  has  to  say  about  the 
origination  of  the  manifold  forms  of  plant  and  animal 
life  ;  and  what  an  inspiring  study  it  is !  What  infinite 
wisdom  is  displayed  in  the  marvelous  modifications  of 

*  "  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,"  pp.  92-130. 
4 


CO    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  original  forms!  How  much  nobler  is  this  view 
than  that  which  presents  us  with  a  "workshop"  of 
the  Almighty  Maker,  thus  reducing  Him  to  a  sort  of 
tinker !  * 

III.  The  third  source  of  evidence  proving  mans 
evolution  from  a  lower  form  is  found  in  the  facts  of 
Variability.  What  is  meant  by  this  will  appear  from 
the  following  anecdote  told  me  by  a  friend,  a  pigeon- 
fancier  :  He  once  made  a  bet  with  a  friend  that  within 
a  year  from  that  time  he  could  get  a  pair  of  perfectly 
white  pigeons  out  of  his  flock,  although  he  had  no  bird 
with  a  single  white  feather  in  his  plumage  to  begin 
with.  Of  course,  the  bet  was  accepted,  and  my  friend 
eagerly  awaited  the  advent  of  some  pigeon  with  a 
white  feather  in  his  coat.  In  due  time  one  came  from 
a  neighbor's  yard,  and  he  caught  and  cooped  him  up 
with  one  of  his  own  birds.  The  result  was  the  produc- 
tion of  an  offspring  with  some  white  feathers  in  its 
plumage,  and  my  friend  continued  to  select  and  match 
together  the  birds  which  varied  in  the  white  feather 
direction  until,  sure  enough,  he  got  his  white  pair  of 
pigeons  within  a  year,  and  won  his  bet.  And  it  is  well 
known  to  pigeon-fanciers  that  all  pigeons — the  pouters, 
tumblers,  carriers,  fantails,  etc. — are  descendants  from 
one  kind — the  Rock  Pigeon.  Having  in  mind  the  doc- 
trine of  evolution,  I  asked  my  friend  if  he  thought  it 
possible  by  artificial  selection  to  entirely  change  the  type 
of  the  pigeou,  to  make  another  bird  out  of  him.  u  Oh, 
no,"  he  replied,  "  it  will  always  be  essentially  a  pigeon." 
Now,  this  has  been  the  universal  opinion  until  a  com- 


*  See  Dawson's  "  Story  of  the  Earth  and  Man,"  p.  27,  where  this 
phrase  is  actually  used. 


MAN'S   ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.      61 

paratively  recent  period.  Species  were  (and  are  still  in 
some  quarters,  chiefly  theological)  considered  groups  of 
plants  or  animals  staked  off  from  certain  others  by  in- 
surmountable barriers.  But  it  was  the  glory  of  the  late 
Mr.  Charles  Darwin  to  show,  in  his  great  work,  "  The 
Origin  of  Species,"  that  some  such  process  as  that 
adopted  by  my  friend  takes  place  among  wild  animals, 
and  he  earnestly  and  ably  contended  that  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  an  absolutely  unchangeable  Species.  The 
terrible  storm  which  his  book  created  in  the  scientific 
and  theological  world  has  scarcely  died  away  even 
now ;  but  its  thunders  are  only  heard  in  the  distance, 
and  his  views  are  pretty  generally  accepted  among 
scientists,  while  they  are  growing  in  favor  with 
theologians.  "Some  cases  of  transmutation  of  spe- 
cies," says  Prof.  "Winchell,  "  have  actually  been  traced, 
and  evidence  has  been  gained  that  the  gradational 
series  connecting  species  of  animals  and  plants  long 
regarded  as  distinct,  are,  in  truth,  only  transitional 
states  of  one  of  the  species  in  its  passage  over  to  the 
other." 

In  the  case  of  birds,  for  instance,  "certain  forms 
have  long  been  known  from  widely  separated  regions 
and  universally  regarded  as  distinct  species — as  distinct 
as  any.  But  by  minute  examinations  of  intermediate 
regions,  a  complete  series  of  intermediate  forms  has 
been  picked  up.  This  has  occurred  not  only  in  one 
case,  but  in  many  cases,  and  not  only  in  birds,  but  in 
many  other  classes  ;  examples  increase  with  our  increas- 
ing knowledge.  The  only  answer  to  such  evidence  is, 
that  these  are  not  true  species.  Now,  see  the  fallacy 
lurking  here.  Anti-Evolutionists  define  species  as  forms 
distinct  and  without  intermediate  links,  and  require  us 


62    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

to  find  such  intermediate  links  ;  and,  finally,  when  with 
infinite  pains,  some  such  links  are  found,  they  say: 
"  Oh,  I  see  we  were  mistaken ;  they  are  only  varieties." 
"But  there  are  some  cases  in  which  this  subterfuge 
will  not  do.  There  are  cases  in  which  the  transitions 
are  between  forms  so  extreme  that  they  can  not,  by 
any  stretch  of  the  term,  be  called  varieties.  In  Wiir- 
temberg  (Germany),  near  the  little  village  of  Steinheim, 
are  found  certain  fresh -water  deposits  which  are  ex- 
tremely rich  in  fossil  shells,  especially  of  the  genus 
called  Planorbis.  As  the  deposits  seem  to  have  been 
continuous  for  ages,  and  the  fossil  shells  very  abundant, 
this  seemed  to  be  an  excellent  opportunity  to  test  the 
theory  of  derivation."  Accordingly,  Prof.  Alpheus 
Hyatt,  of  Boston,  made  a  most  thorough  examination 
of  these  shells  in  1880.  "  In  passing  from  the  lowest  to 
the  highest  strata  the  species  change  greatly,  and  many 
times,  the  extreme  forms  being  so  different,  that,  were 
it  not  for  the  intermediate  forms,  they  would  be  called 
not  only  different  species,  but  different  genera.  And 
yet  the  gradations  are  so  insensible  that  the  whole  series 
is  nothing  less  than  a  demonstration,  in  this  case,  at 
least,  of  origin  of  species  by  derivation  with  modifica- 
tions. The  case  is  striking,  partly  because  it  is  a  very 
favorable  one,  but  mainly  because  it  has  been  so  care- 
fully studied.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  equally 
careful  study  would  reveal  the  same  transitions  in  many 
other  cases.  Nor  are  such  transitions  confined  to  the 
lower  forms  of  life,  though  they  are  probably  more 
abundant  there.  According  to  Prof.  Cope,  the  nicest 
gradations  may  be  traced  between  some  of  the  extinct 
mammalian  species  so  abundant  in  the  Tertiary  deposits 
of  the  West,"  and  Prof.  Le  Conte  thinks  that  "  the  same 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING    TO  SCIENCE.     03 

is  probably  true  of  many  extinct  species  of  the  liorse 
family."  * 

Tims,  at  last,  this  common  but  superficial  objec- 
tion to  evolution  has  been  exploded.  "  The  sum 
total  of  the  variational  evidence  shows  us  that  the  de- 
rivative origin  of  types  in  paleontological  history  is  a 
natural  possibility." 

IV.  But,  in  the  fourth  place,  we  have  the  Embryo- 
logical  evidence — that  is,  proofs  afforded  by  the  devel- 
opment of  each  individual  from  a  minute  speck  called 
the  embryo.  "  This  seems  to  us  to  bring  all  the  other 
evidence  to  a  focus  and  complete  the  conviction  that 
the  derivative  origin  of  species  is  a  fact.  It  affords 
not  only  a  picture  of  the  succession  of  extinct  forms,, 
but  it  is  a  picture  in  which  the  successive  terms  are 
known  to  be  derivatively  related  to  each  other."  (Win- 
chell.) 

"  It  is  a  curious  and  most  significant  fact,"  says 
Prof.  Le  Conte,  "  that  the  individual  animal  in  embry- 
onic development  passes  through  temporary  stages  which 
are  similar  in  many  respects  to  permanent  conditions  in 
some  of  the  lower  forms  in  the  same  group.  To  give 
one  example  for  the  sake  of  clearness :  the  frog,  in  its 
early  stages  of  embryonic  development,  is  essentially  a 
fish,  and  if  it  stopped  at  this  stage  would  be  so  called  and 
classed.  But  it  does  not  stop  ;  it  passes  through  the 
fish  stage  and  several  other  stages.  In  its  tadpole  (or 
first)  state  it  is  a  gill -breather.  It  has,  therefore,  its  gill- 
arches,  three  on  each  side,  like  a  fish,  and  for  the  same 
reason  viz.,  the  aeration  of  the  blood.  But  when  its 
gills  dry  up  and  lung-respiration  is  established,  its  now 

*  "  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,"  pp.  61, 23G-239. 


64    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

useless  gill-arches  still  remain  as  aortic  arches  to  attest 
their  previous  condition."  Take  another  example,  the 
lizard.  "If  one  examines  the  large  vessels  going  out 
from  the  heart  of  a  lizard,  he  will  find  six  arches  (called 
aortic  arches),  i.  e.,  three  on  a  side.  These  all  unite  be- 
low the  heart  to  form  one  descending  abdominal  artery. 
Now,  there  is  no  conceivable  use  in  having  so  many  of 
these  arches,  as  we  know  from  the  fact  that  birds  and 
mammals  have  only  one  aortic  arch,  and  the  circulation 
of  the  blood  is  as  effective  as,  nay,  much  more  effective 
in  these  than  in  reptiles.  The  explanation  of  this 
anomaly,"  Prof.  Le  Conte  adds,  "  is  revealed  at  once  as 
soon  as  we  examine  the  circulation  of  a  fish.  The 
multiplication  of  aortic  arches  is  here,  of  course,  nec- 
essary, for  they  are  the  gill-arches.  If,  now,  a  lizard 
were  ever  a  fish  and  afterward  turned  into  a  lizard, 
changing  its  gill-respiration  for  lung-respiration,  then, 
of  course,  the  useless  gill-arches  will  remain  to  tell  the 
story. 

"  Now,  although  a  lizard  never  was  a  fish  in  its  indi- 
vidual history,  yet  it  was  a  fish  in  \X&  family  history, 
and  therefore  it  yet  retains,  by  heredity,  this  curious 
and  useless  structure  as  evidence  of  its  ancestry."  We 
thus  see  that  "  the  embryo  of  a  higher  animal  of  any 
group  passes  now  through  stages  represented  by  lower 
forms,  because  in  its  evolution  its  ancestors  did  actually 
have  these  forms.  From  this  point  of  view,  then,  the 
history  of  each  individual  (its  development)  is  a  brief 
repetition  as  it  were,  from  memory,  of  the  main  points 
of  family  history.  ...  It  is  a  most  curious  and  signifi- 
cant fact  that,  in  the  early  embryonic  condition  of  birds 
and  mammals,  including  man,  we  find  on  each  side  of 
the  neck  several  gill-slits,  each  with  its  gill-arch,  and 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.      65 

there  are  several  aortic  arches  on  each  side  precisely  as 
we  have  already  described." 

These  arches  are  subsequently,  some  of  them,  oblit- 
erated ;  some  modified  to  form  the  one  aortic  arch,  and 
some  of  them  still  more  modified  to  form  the  other 
great  arteries  coming  from  the  heart  to  supply  the  head 
and  fore-limbs.  This  is  a  beautiful  and  convincing  ex- 
ample of  evolution.  "  See,  then,  the  gradual  process  of 
change  through  the  whole  vertebrate  (backboned)  de- 
partment. In  the  lowest  of  all  vertebrates,  if  vertebrate 
it  may  be  called  (for  what  corresponds  to  its  backbone 
is  an  unjointed  fibrous  cord) — i.  e.,  in  the  lancelet — 
there  are  about  forty  gill-arches  on  each  side.  As  we 
rise  in  the  scale  of  fishes,  these  are  reduced  in  number. 
In  the  lamprey  there  are  seven ;  in  the  sharks  usually 
five ;  in  ordinary  fishes  there  are  four,  sometimes  only 
three  on  each  side,  the  others  being  aborted.  Thus  far 
the  change  is  only  by  diminution  of  numbers,  but  the 
further  change  is  one  of  adaptive  modification.  In 
some  reptiles  (the  lizard  for  instance)  the  three  gill- 
arches  on  each  side  all  retain  the  form  of  aortic  arches ; 
in  some  reptiles  only  two  retain  this  form.  In  birds 
and  mammals  only  one  arch  is  retained,  in  the  form  of 
aortic  arch,  the  others  being  modified  to  form  the  great 
outgoing  vessels  of  the  heart,  or  else  aborted." 

Having  thus  made  it  clear,  I  hope,  that  "  the  indi- 
vidual higher  animal  in  embryonic  development  passes 
now  through  temporary  stages  which  are  similar  in 
many  respects  to  permanent  or  mature  conditions  in 
some  of  the  lower  forms  in  the  same  group,"  and  this 
"  because  in  its  evolution  its  ancestors  did  actually  have 
these  forms,"  I  now  quote  Prof.  Le  Conte's  masterly 
sketch  of  the  evolution  of  man's  brain,  which  shows 


66    EVOLUTION'  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

that  lie  is  a  descendant  of  fishes,  reptiles,  birds,  and 
mammals: 

"  The  very  early  condition  of  the  human  brain  "  (in 
embryo),  says  our  author,  "  is  nothing  more  than  the 
intercranial  continuation  of  the  spinal  cord  enlarged  a 
little  into  three  swellings  (ganglia).  .  .  .  This  stage  may 
be  regarded  as  lower  than  that  of  the  ordinary  fish.  I 
have,  therefore,  called  it  the  sub-fish  stage.  The  cere- 
bellum is  a  subsequent  growth  from  the  medulla,  as  is 
the  cerebrum  and  olfactive  lobes  from  the  thalamus. 
This  next  stage,  therefore,  may  be  said  to  represent  fair- 
ly the  fish-stage.  Henceforward  the  principal  growth 
is  in  the  cerebrum  and  cerebellum,  both  of  which  are 
subsequent  outgrowths  of  the  original  simple  ganglia, 
the  medulla,  and  the  thalamus. 

"  The  cerebrum  especially  increases  steadily  in  rela- 
tive size,  first  becoming  larger  than  but  not  covering 
the  optic  lobes.  This  represents  the  reptilian  stage. 
Next,  by  further  growth  it  covers  partly  the  optic  lobes. 
This  may  be  called  the  bird  stage.  Then  it  covers 
wholly  the  optic  lobes,  and  encroaches  on  the  cerebel- 
lum behind  and  olfactive  lobes  in  front.  This  is  the 
mammalian  stage.  Finally,  it  covers  and  overhangs 
all,  and  thus  assumes  the  human  stage." 

Prof.  Le  Conte,  in  the  chapter  from  which  I  have 
thus  quoted  at  length,*  gives  woodcuts  of  all  these  stages 
of  development  of  man's  brain  ;  and  any  one  who  will 
read  the  chapter  carefully  and  understand  it  must,  I 
think,  be  convinced  that  the  human  brain  passes  through 
such  stages  of  development  because  and  only  because 


*  "  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,"  Part  II, 
chap.  vi. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING    TO  SCIENCE.      GT 

man  is  a  descendant  of  animals  which  possessed  brains 
corresponding  to  these  temporary  stages  of  embryonic 
evolution.  "  Fishes,"  says  Prof.  Le  Conte,  "  were  the 
only  vertebrates  living  in  the  Devonian  times  (see  dia- 
gram). 

a  The  first  form  of  brain,  therefore,  was  that  charac- 
teristic of  that  class.  Then  reptiles  were  introduced  ; 
then  birds  and  marsupials ;  then  true  mammals ;  and, 
lastly,  man.  The  different  styles  of  brains  characteristic 
of  these  classes  were,  therefore,  successively  made  by 
evolution  from  early  and  simpler  forms."  Man's  de- 
velopment, therefore,  in  embryo,  "  is  a  brief  repetition 
from  memory,  so  to  speak,  of  his  family  history." 

To  prevent  misunderstanding,  it  seems  necessary  to 
quote  and  emphasize  Mr.  Spencer's  remarks  on  the 
popular  misapprehension  of  this  argument  made  by 
popular  treatises  on  evolution.  u  An  impression,"  he 
says,  "  has  been  given  by  those  who  have  popularized 
the  statements  of  embryologists,  that,  during  its  devel- 
opment, each  organism  passes  through  stages  in  which 
it  resembles  the  adult  forms  of  lower  organisms  ;  that 
the  embryo  of  a  man  is  at  one  time  like  a  fish,  and  at 
another  time  like  a  man.  This  is  not  a  fact.  The  fact 
established  is,  that  up  to  a  certain  point  the  embryos 
of  a  man  and  a  fish  continue  similar,  and  that  then 
differences  begin  to  appear  and  increase — the  one  em- 
bryo approaching  more  and  more  toward  the  form  of 
a  fish,  the  other  diverging  from  it  more  and  more. 

"  And  so  with  resemblances  to  the  more  advanced 
types.  Supposing  the  germs  of  all  kinds  of  organisms 
to  be  simultaneously  developing,  we  may  say  that  all 
members  of  the  vast  multitude  take  their  first  steps  in 
the  same  direction  ;  that  at  the  second  step  one  half  of 


68    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

this  vast  multitude  diverges  from  the  other  half,  and 
thereafter  follows  a  different  course  of  development ; 
that  the  immense  assemblage  contained  in  either  of 
these  divisions  very  soon  again  shows  a  tendency  to 
take  two  or  more  routes  of  development;  that  each  of 
the  two  or  more  minor  assemblages  thus  resulting 
shows  for  a  time  but  small  divergences  among  its  mem- 
bers, but  presently  again  divides  into  groups  which 
separate  ever  more  widely  as  they  progress ;  and  so 
on,  until  each  organism,  when  nearly  complete,  is  ac- 
companied in  its  further  modifications  only  by  organ- 
isms of  the  same  species ;  and,  last  of  all,  assumes  the 
peculiarities  which  distinguish  it  as  an  individual — 
diverges  to  a  slight  extent  to  the  organisms  it  is  most 
like.  The  reader  must  also  be  cautioned  against  ac- 
cepting this  generalization  as  exact.  The  likenesses 
thus  successively  displayed  are  not  precise,  but  approx- 
imate." 

But  the  important  question  is,  Why  these  approxi- 
mate likenesses  ?  Why  should  there  be  any  such  strik- 
ing embryonic  resemblances,  if  all  animals  be  not  genet- 
ically related — do  not  belong  to  one  great  genealogical 
tree  ?  Mr.  Spencer  replies,  with  all  other  evolutionists, 
that  this  question  is  unanswerable  except  on  the  evolu- 
tion-hypothesis. He  believes,  as  firmly  as  any  other 
evolutionist,  that  the  embryonic  resemblances  are  due  to 
community  of  origin.* 

And  so,  to  quote  Prof.  Winchell's  forcible  summary 
of  the  evidences  of  man's  development  from  lower  forms : 
"  Paleontological  history  exhibits  a  series  in  which  the 
continued  interpolation  of  newly  discovered  terms  pro- 


*  "  Principles  of  Biology,"  I,  p.  143  ;  cf.  Part  III,  chap.  v. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO  SCIENCE.      69 

duces  the  suspicion  of  a  perfectly  graduated  and  genetic 
line.  It  suggests  material  continuity  as  a  possibilify 
and  a  promise.  Morphological  relations  present  such 
continuity  as  something  which  within  the  range  of  ob- 
servation is  &  probability.  The  phenomena  of  Vari- 
ability reveal  a  disposition  and  an  aptitude  on  the  part 
of  Nature  to  fulfill  the  '  promise,'  and  make  the  '  prob- 
ability' completely  a  fact.  The  data  of  Embryology 
(note  well)  demonstrate  that  the  derivative  relation  of 
such  terms  as  paleontology  presents  is  and  ever — re- 
peated actuality.  Now,  with  the  work  completed  in 
the  ontogenetic  epitome,  and  with  this  proof  of  Na- 
ture's method  and  the  variational  proof  of  Nature's 
method  and  ?neans,  it  is  little  stretch  of  belief  to  grant 
that  Nature  pursued  the  method  of  derivative  origi- 
nations during  the  whole  period  of  paleontological 
history."  * 

Under  the  pressure  of  these  and  similar  facts  and 
arguments,  some  scientists  and  theologians  have  been 
compelled  to  grant  that  man's  physical  organism  has 
been  developed  from  a  lower  animal  form,  but  they 
draw  a  line  at  his  spiritual  nature  ;  assert  that  his 
spirit  could  not  have  been  evolved  from  the  anima  of 
animals  But  the  ground  is  being  rapidly  cut  from 
under  their  feet  by  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  Prof.  Eomanes, 
and  others.f  For  my  own  part,  I  see  no  possibility  of 
drawing  so  imaginary  a  line,  and  therefore  I  accept  the 

*  "  Sparks  from  a  Geologist's  Hammer,"  p.  348.  Compare  Mr. 
Spencer's  kt  Biology,"  I,  chapters  iv-vii,  on  the  Evidences  of  Evolu- 
tion, and  Dr.  Romanes's  pamphlet  on  "  The  Scientific  Evidences  of 
Organic  Evolution,"  Humbolt  Library,  No.  40. 

f  Spencer's  "  Psychology,"  Romanes's  "  Animal  Intelligence," 
u  Mental  Evolution  in  Animals,"  "  Mental  Evolution  in  Man,"  etc. 


70    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

evolution  of  man,  body  and  soul,  from  the  lower  ani- 
mals. We  have  been  compelled  to  grant  evolution  in 
Astronomy,  Geology,  and  Biology,  and  it  is  folly  to 
ask  the  evolutionists  to  stop  short  at  Psychology  and 
Sociology.  We  should  gratefully  accept  their  deliver- 
ies on  these  subjects  and  readjust  our  theology  accord- 
ingly. In  saying  this,  however,  I  would  not  be  under- 
stood as  indorsing  or  adopting  any  particular  theory 
of  Evolution  (Lamarckian,  Darwinian,  Spencerian,  or 
other) ;  but  I  mean  to  say  we  should  accept  the  fact  of 
evolution  in  all  its  length  and  breadth  and  depth  and 
height,  and  give  due  weight  to  all  the  factors  or  causes 
of  evolution  which  the  different  scientists  discover,  wait- 
ing patiently  till  all  the  laws  and  causes  of  evolution  be 
discovered  before  we  formulate  an  evolutionary  creed. 
In  view  of  the  statements  just  made  concerning  the 
evolution  of  man's  mind,  it  may  be  thought  that  I 
should  give  the  facts  and  reasons  upon  which  such  state- 
ments are  based.  This  I  shall  not  do,  for  two  cogent 
reasons  :  First,  space  will  not  permit  it ;  and,  secondly, 
if  one  accept  the  evolution  of  man's  physical  nature, 
he  will  not  hesitate  very  long  to  accept  mental  evolu- 
tion— especially  if  he  will  read  Mr.  Spencer's  "Psy- 
chology" and  Prof.  Eomanes's  works  referred  to  above. 
These  able  treatises  seem  to  me  quite  satisfactory,  and 
therefore  I  content  myself  with  referring  the  reader  to 
them.  Let  me  add  that  no  one  is  more  conscious  than 
I  am  of  the  imperfection  of  the  sketch  of  Man's  evo- 
lution thus  given  ;  but  it  was  impossible  to  make  it  more 
perfect  in  the  space  allotted  to  me,  and  my  simple 
object  has  been  to  give  the  reader  the  right  point  of 
view,  to  break  down  popular  superficial  objections  to 
the  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  to  show  that  it  is  on 


MAN'S   ORIGIN  ACCORDING    TO  SCIENCE.     71 

chimera,  but  a  fact.  If  I  have  succeeded  in  doing  this, 
I  am  satisfied  to  refer  my  reader  for  full  information 
to  the  works  of  Mr.  Darwin,*  of  Mr.  Spencer,  f  of  Prof. 
Huxley,  X  of  Prof.  Dawson  (an  anti-evolutionist),*  of 
Prof.  Le  Conte,  [  of  Prof.  Winchell,A  and  other  leading 
scientists. 

*  "  Origin  of  Species,"  "  Descent  of  Man,"  etc. 
f  "  Synthetic  Philosophy." 

%  "Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  "Science  and  Culture,"  "Lay  Ser- 
mons," etc. 

*  "  Story  of  the  Earth  and  Man,"  "  Origin  of  the  World,"  etc. 
||  "  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought,"  etc. 

A  "  Sparks  from  a  Geologist's  Hammer,"  etc. 


CHAPTEE  III. 

man's  origin  according  to  theology. 

We  rejoiee  in  the  enlightenment  and  tolerance  of 
our  age,  but  the  historian  of  the  future  will  have  the 
painful  duty  to  perforin  of  recording  instances  of  intol- 
erance and  bigotry  which  find  their  prototypes  in  the 
history  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Not  only  were  Mr. 
Darwin  and  his  co-evolutionists  denounced  and  anathe- 
matized by  the  pulpit  and  religious  press,  but  even  so 
late  as  the  year  1888  an  ecclesiastical  assembly  (Presby- 
terian) deprived  a  theological  professor  of  his  chair 
because  he  inclined  to  accept  a  modified  form  of  evolu- 
tion— believed  that  Adam  was  formed  not  of  inorganic 
but  of  organic  dust.  If  the  rack  and  thumb-screw  are 
abolished,  the  odium  theologicum  still  exists  and  pro- 
duces essentially  the  same  effects,  albeit  by  more  refined 
and  excruciating  methods.  "  Persecution,"  said  the  late 
Rev.  Frederick  Robertson — and  he  spoke  from  bitter 
experience — "persecution  is  that  which  affixes  penal- 
ties upon  views  held,  instead  of  wpon'life  led.  Is  per- 
secution only  fire  and  sword  ?  But  suppose  a  man  of 
sensitive  feeling  says,  The  sword  is  less  sharp  to  me 
than  the  slander ;  fire  is  less  intolerable  than  the  refusal 
of  sympathy  !  "  The  man  who  adopts  certain  "  views  " 
need  never  expect  ecclesiastical  preferment.      Protest- 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO   THEOLOGY.    73 

antism  is  quite  as  intolerant  as  Romanism.  Although 
no  Protestant  church  has  a  specific  dogma  on  the  subject 
of  man's  origin,  yet  the  general  consensus  of  Protestant 
theologians  is  so  decidedly  anti-evolution  in  spirit  that  a 
clergyman  who  aspires  to  be  a  "  doctor,"  "  professor,"  or 
u  bishop,"  would  better  beware  of  "  science  falsely  so 
called."  True,  the  fundamental  tenet  of  Protestantism 
is  the  "  Right  of  Private  Judgment"  in  religious  matters, 
and  hence  no  one  has  a  moral  (and  no  one  ought  to  have 
an  ecclesiastical)  right  to  debar  one  the  honors  of  the 
Church  on  account  of  views,  but  nevertheless  "the 
powers  that  be"  have  and  exercise  such  authority. 

Not  only  has  Protestantism  no  dogma  concerning 
man's  origin,  but  theological  writers  who  claim  that 
"  Man  is  a  special  creation  " — a  being  "  created  in  the 
image  of  God " — "  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground " — 
seem  utterly  unable  to  tell  us  exactly  what  they  mean 
by  these  phrases.  Thus,  Dr.  Van  Oosterzee  asks, 
"Whence,  then,  is  man?  ...  It  is  not  enough,"  he  an- 
swers, "  to  say  that  he,  as  everything  else,  has  his  origin 
from  God.  The  question  is  whether  any  more  accurate 
definition  concerning  the  proper  origin  of  the  human 
race  can  be  attained.  Without  reason  this  question  is 
put  on  one  side,  as  not  belonging  to  the  domain  of 
Theology  but  to  that  of  Physical  Science."*  When  I 
read  these  words  my  heart  leaped  for  joy,  for  having 
looked  in  vain  through  the  works  of  other  theologians 
and  scientific  advocates  of  "special  creations"  for  an 
"accurate  definition"  of  man's  origination,  I  thought 
that  at  last  I  had  found  it.  Imagine  my  disappoint- 
ment when  I  read  the  following  definition  :  "  Man,  the 

*  Vau  Oosterzee,  "  Christian  Dogmatics,"  vol.  i,  p.  3G0. 


74    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

most  excellent  being  upon  earth,  owes  his  origin  to  a 
definite  creative  act  of  God,  in  consequence  of  which 
he  may  in  no  sense  be  called  the  merely  natural  product 
of  a  lower  order  of  creatures,  but  rather  a  link  in  the 
chain  of  animated  beings."  Let  us  analyze  this  defini- 
tion :  First,  who  doubts  that  man  is  "  the  most  excellent 
being  on  earth  "  ?  Nobody.  Secondly,  who  doubts  that 
"  a  definite  creative  act  of  God  "  takes  place  in  the  pro- 
duction of  every  creature  ?  None  but  the  atheist.  Mr. 
Spencer  recognizes  "  An  Eternal  Energy  "  from  which 
all  things  proceed,  and  this  by  most  "definite"  acts. 
Thirdly,  Dr.  Yan  Oosterzee,  like  so  many  other  theo- 
logians, uses  the  word  "Natural"  in  an  undefined  sense, 
and  he  would  do  well  to  ponder  the  words  of  Prof. 
Huxley  on  the  meaning  of  the  terms  "  Natural  Order," 
"Laws  of  Nature,"  etc.*  These  are  mere  names  ap- 
plied to  certain  phenomena,  but  they  by  no  means  ex- 
plain those  phenomena.  Finally,  we  are  told  that  man 
is  "  a  separate  link  in  the  chain  of  animate  beings,"  but 
not  one  word  is  said  about  how  this  link  was  forged. 
In  short,  this  "  accurate  definition  "  is  meaningless. 

Another  definition  of  man's  origin  is  given  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  in  the  second  volume  of  his 
large  work  on  "  Systematic  Theology  "  (p.  3),  where  he 
quotes  the  account  of  man's  creation  in  Genesis  (i,  22, 
27,  and  ii,  7),  and  adds :  "  Two  things  are  included  in 
this  account.  First,  that  man's  body  was  formed  by  the 
immediate  intervention  of  God.  It  did  not  grow  ;  nor 
was  it  produced  by  a  process  of  development.  Second- 
ly, the  soul  was  derived  from  God.  He  breathed  into 
man  the  '  breath  of  life.'  " 


*  a 


Popular  Science  Monthly,"  January,  1888,  p.  355. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO   THEOLOGY.    75 

One  question  explodes  this  "  definition,"  viz.,  What 
is  meant  by  "the  immediate  intervention  of  God"? 
This  is  precisely  what  we  desire  to  have  defined,  but 
our  author  is  so  haunted  by  "anti-Scriptural  theories" 
of  creation  that  he  has  no  time  to  formulate  a  Scriptural 
theory.  There  is  plenty  of  denunciation  of  "  Natural- 
ism," etc.,  in  the  writings  of  both  these  eminent  divines, 
but  I  have  looked  in  vain  for  an  "  accurate  definition  " 
of  what  they  consider  the  Biblical  idea  of  man's  origina- 
tion. Surely  they  do  not  mean  that  God  came  down 
(or  up)  to  some  spot,  say  in  the  plains  of  Mesopotamia, 
and  took  up  dust  and  made  a  mud-man,  and  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life.  Nor  can  they  mean 
that  the  Energy  (God)  which  constantly  operates  in 
Nature,  causing  the  stone  to  form,  the  plant  to  grow, 
and  the  animal  to  think,  on  one  occasion,  by  a  peculiar 
exertion  of  itself  (Himself),  made  the  particles  of  dust 
collect  themselves  into  a  human  form,  into  which  the 
same  Energy  infused  the  power  of  motion,  life,  and 
thought.  If  they  mean  this,  let  it  be  said  in  plain  words, 
but  let  us  not  be  expected  to  accept  vague,  general 
terms  as  "  definitions." 

The  question,  therefore,  returns  with  redoubled 
force :  If  man's  body  (and  soul)  were  not  derived,  ac- 
cording to  the  well-recognized  laws  of  Morphology, 
Embryology,  and  Psychology,  from  a  lower  animal 
form  ;  if  the  human  frame  is  not  genetically  related  to 
lower  organisms,  how  was  it  produced?  It  is  interest- 
ing to  note  that  Dr.  Hodge,  in  his  little  book  on  "  What 
is  Darwinism  ?  " — a  most  unsatisfactory  production  in 
every  respect — virtually  contradicts  his  opinion  just 
quoted.  He  says :  "  Man  is,  according  to  the  Scripture, 
as  concerns  his  body,  of  the  earth.     So  far  he  belongs 


76    EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  the  animal  kingdom."*  But  if  man's  body  were 
formed  by  "  the  immediate  intervention  of  God,"  how- 
can  it  belong  to  the  animal  kingdom  ?  The  doctor  evi- 
dently grew — became  more  of  an  evolutionist — between 
the  time  of  the  publication  of  his  "  Theology"  and  this 
later  work  ;  he  inclines  to  accept  the  physical  evolution 
of  man  ;  but  this,  as  already  remarked,  involves  his  men- 
tal evolution.  Other  advocates  of  the  special  creation 
of  man,  be  they  scientists  or  theologians,  fail  as  abso- 
lutely as  the  two  just  quoted  to  tell  us  exactly  what  they 
mean  by  such  a  creation. 

Dr.  Cunningham  G-eikie,  in  his  "Hours  with  the 
Bible"  (Vol.  I,  Chaps.  X  and  XI),  discusses  man's 
origin  quite  fully,  and  attempts  to  refute  the  evolution- 
ary theory,  but  formulates  no  other  theory.  Dr.  Mar- 
tensen,  in  his  "  Christian  Dogmatics  "  (page  136  et  seq., 
T.  and  T.  Clark's  Library),  talks  most  mystically  about 
man's  creation  in  the  image  of  God,  but  gives  us  no 
definite  idea  concerning  the  mode  of  his  origination. 
Dr.  Arnold  Guyot  is  equally  unsatisfactory, f  and  Prin- 
cipal Dawson  does  not  help  his  theological  friends  out 
of  their  dilemma,  although  he  has  written  one  wrork 
specially  for  this  purpose.  J  But  while  the  advocates 
of  "  special  creation  "  can  not  tell  us  exactly  what  they 
mean  by  this  phrase,  they,  nevertheless,  insist  that  man 
was  a  new  creation — a  new  link  in  the  chain  of  life, 
radically  different  in  soul,  and  probably  also  in  body, 
from  all  lower  animal  forms.  On  what  do  they  base 
this  claim  ?  On  the  facts  of  Morphology,  Embryology, 
Paleontology,  etc.  ?      No ;  for  we  have  seen  that  all 

*  "  What  is  Darwinism  %  "  p.  5. 

f  "  Essay  on  Creation/'  p.  122  et  seq. 

X  "  Origin  of  the  World." 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO   THEOLOGY.    77 

such  facts  point  to  man's  derivation  from  the  lower 
animals.  What,  then,  constitutes  the  foundation  of  the 
theological  view?  A  document  whose  meaning  and 
authorship  are  so  hopelessly  uncertain  that  the  most 
learned  and  devout  minds  can  not  agree  on  either  the 
one  or  the  other.  It  is  now  generally  acknowledged, 
among  even  "  conservative "  commentators,  that  the 
Book  of  Genesis  consists  of  traditions,  oral  or  written, 
which  were  handed  down  from  patriarchal  times.  Thus, 
to  quote  only  one  "  conservative  "  writer,  Bishop  Harold 
Browne  says  :  "  It  is  not  necessary  to  deny  that  Moses 
had  certain  documents  or  traditions  referring  to  the 
patriarchal  ages,  which  he  incorporated  into  his  history. 
Indeed,  it  is  most  likely  that  such  traditions  should 
have  come  down  through  Shem  and  Abraham  to  Joseph 
and  the  Israelites  in  Egypt ;  and  there  can  be  no  reason 
why  an  inspired  historian  should  not  have  worked  up 
such  trustworthy  materials  into  the  history  of  the  an- 
cestors of  his  people."  *  The  idea  of  "  an  inspired  his- 
torian "  working  up  another's  documents  into  a  produc- 
tion of  his  own  seems  utterly  absurd,  for  wThy  could  not 
and  did  not  the  Inspirer  originate  an  entirely  new  ac- 
count ?  Surely  it  would  have  been  quite  as  easy  as  it 
was  to  inspire  Moses  to  use  traditions  which  had  existed 
for  hundreds  of  years,  perhaps  in  oral  form,  and  may 
have  been  corrupted. 

Surely  the  Inspirer  had  no  reason  for  economizing 
his  sources  of  wisdom.  If  so,  the  documentary  theory 
does  not  prove  it.  That  theory  really  gives  up  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  those  parts  of  Genesis  which  con- 
sist of  the  said  traditions.     And  wdien  the  reader  re- 

*  "  Speaker's  Commentary,"  vol.  i,  Introduction,  p.  2. 


78    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

members,  or  is  informed,  that  the  late  George  Smith, 
among  others,  discovered  "  A  Chaldean  Genesis  " — i.  e., 
accounts  of  creation,  the  deluge,  etc. — written  on  clay 
tablets,  brought  from  that  section  of  the  country  where 
Abraham  was  reared — Ur  of  the  Chaldees  (Genesis  xi, 
28-31) — he  will  not  be  long  in  concluding  that  our 
Genesis  is  only  one  of  several  accounts  of  creation 
which  originated  among  the  religious  poets  and  sages 
of  that  age  and  country ;  and  although  it  is  superior  to 
any  of  those  accounts,  and  most  valuable  as  a  monu- 
ment of  ancient  philosophy,  the  student  will  not  accept 
it  as  absolutely  and  literally  infallible  until  it  is  proved 
to  he  so. 

It  is  utter  folly  to  ask  us  to  accept  a  document  as 
Divinely  inspired  without  giving  a  single  reason  for  so 
wonderful  a  conclusion — without  even  telling  us  who 
wrote  that  document.  "  But  hold  !  "  cries  the  advocate 
of  traditionalism ;  "  Christ  and  His  Apostles  indorsed 
Genesis  as  an  inspired  work — the  work  of  Moses."" 

"  If  we  consult  the  Bible  "  (says  Dr.  Yan  Oosterzee), 
"  we  learn  from  the  Lord  Jesus  that  it  is  God  who  has 
made  them  male  and  female  (Matthew  xix,  4).  St.  Paul 
speaks  in  a  like  sense  (I  Corinthians  xi,  8-12,  and  I 
Timothy  ii,  3),  and  his  words  are  only  the  echo  of  the 
Old  Testament,  All  these  voices  refer  us  to  the  records 
of  Moses  (Genesis  i,  26,  and  ii,  7)."  Upon  this  it  may 
be  observed  : 

First.  The  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  a  docu- 
ment can  hardly  be  established  by  citing  statements 
from  still  more  questionable  documents.  For  all  well- 
informed  people  know  (and  the  uninformed  reader  will 
subsequently  learn)  that  the  authorship  of  the  Gospels  is 
no  more  certain  than  that  of  Genesis.     It  wrould  be  well 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO   THEOLOGY.    79 

for  those  who  are  ever  trying  to  press  our  Lord  into  the 
service  of  Biblical  Criticism  and  Dogmatic  Theology  to 
remember  that  He  never  wrote  out  His  views  on  such 
subjects,  and  it  is  much  more  probable  that  we  have  in 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  the  opinions  of  pious 
Jeios  than  it  is  that  we  have  our  Lord's  views. 

We  may  be  sure  at  any  rate  that  He,  if  He  were  on 
earth  to-day,  would  be  the  last  one  to  fly  in  the  face  of 
fact  and  reason  in  order  to  preserve  the  letter  of  the 
first  and  second  chapters  of  Genesis.  He  regarded  Na- 
ture and  the  Human  Spirit  as  no  less  revelations  of  God 
than  the  Bible.     But — 

Secondly.  Even  granting  that  Christ  and  St.  Paul 
did  utter  the  words  (the  latter  certainly  wrote  First 
Corinthians)  which  are  attributed  to  them,  those  words 
neither  prove  the  authorship  and  inspiration  of  Genesis 
nor  disprove  man's  derivation  from  the  lower  animals. 
Nobody  doubts  that  "  God  created  them  male  and 
female,"  but  the  question  is,  How  did  He  so  create 
them  ?  Neither  Christ  nor  St.  Paul  answers  this  ques- 
tion, because  they  were  teachers  of  religion,  not  of 
physical  science,  and  it  was  sufficient  for  their  purpose 
to  say,  "  God  did  it."  They  therefore  merely  refer  to 
or  "  echo  "  the  account  in  Genesis,  but  do  not  explain 
the  precise  meaning  of  that  account,  whicli  is  exactly 
what  we  now  desire  to  have  done.  We  are  therefore 
forced  to  interpret  Genesis  as  best  we  can,  and  the  fol- 
lowing seems  to  be  the  only  view  which  modern  discov- 
ery permits  us  to  hold :  The  accounts  of  creation,  the 
deluge,  etc.,  in  Genesis  were  written  probably  about 
fifteen  hundred  or  two  thousand  years  before  Christ,  in 
Chaldea,  by  some  of  the  religious  sages  who  there  pon- 
dered the  great  problems  of  Being.     When  Abraham 


80    EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

left  "Ur  of  the  Chaldees,"  he  gathered  together  these 
accounts,  took  them  with  him,  and  handed  them  on  to 
his  children ;  they  passed  them  on  to  their  children, 
and  finally  they  were  embodied  (by  Moses  or  some  one 
else)  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  so  became  the  heritage  of 
the  Jewish  ^Nation.  These  narratives  can  not  be  inter- 
preted literally,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  no  one  attempts 
to  so  interpret  them. 

They  were  not  written  to  give  a  scientific  account  of 
the  origin  of  the  world,  but  for  a  strictly  religious  pur- 
pose. The  author's  (or  authors' — for  there  may  have 
been  several)  contemporaries  were  Nature-worshipers, 
and  so  he  (they)  aimed  a  deadly  blow  at  such  worship 
by  proclaiming  "  that  the  heavens  and  the  earth  "  were 
"created,"  and  hence  men  should  worship  a  higher 
Being ;  and  the  lesson  which  he  (they)  aimed  to  teach 
has  to  be  learned  by  many  of  this  materialistic  genera- 
tion ;  but  it  is  simply  folly  to  cite  these  narratives  as 
refutations  of  a  scientific  theory  so  well  established  as 
the  theory  of  Evolution. 

Two  facts,  however,  stated  in  Genesis  (ii,  7)  concern- 
ing man's  origin  modern  science  confirms,  viz. :  first, 
that  man's  body  consists  of  dust ;  and,  secondly,  that  the 
soul  of  man  is  not  identical  with  his  body.  While  the 
commonly  observed  fact  of  decomposition  at  death  may 
have  suggested  the  first  truth  to  the  ancient  sage,  yet 
his  apprehension  of  the  second  is  surely  wonderful. 
Our  modern  savants  can  tell  us  something  of  the  pro- 
cess of  the  formation  of  man's  body  and  also  something 
of  the  Divine  inspiration  (breathing  into  man)  of  the 
sonl ;  their  elder  brother  did  not  concern  himself  with 
4 '  processes,"  as  he  was  teaching  religion  and  not  sci- 
ence.     He   merely  proclaimed   that   God  created   all 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO   THEOLOGY.    81 

things,  and,  although  man's  body  should  m older  into  its 
original  dust,  yet  his  soul  was  a  reflection,  an  "  image," 
a  spark  flashed  forth  from  the  Eternal  Light,  and  hence 
partook  of  its  nature  and  (it  was  necessarily  implied) 
man  should  live  worthy  of  his  Divine  parentage.  The 
strange  account  of  Woman's  creation  (Genesis,  ii,  21,  22) 
was  doubtless  suggested  by  the  fact  of  her  dependence 
on  the  man,  and  was  designed  to  impress  the  beautiful 
truth  involved  in  this  fact :  "  And  Adam  (the  Man)  said, 
This  is  now  bone  of  my  bone,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh ;  she 
shall  be  called  woman  because  she  was  taken  out  of  man. 
Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother  and 
shall  cleave  unto  his  wife ;  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh." 

How  profoundly  significant  to  the  divorce-lovers  and 
wife-abusers  of  our  day  ;  but  how  much  more  significant 
to  the  adulterous  generations  of  antiquity ! 

Interpreted  in  this,  or  a  similar,  manner  Genesis  will 
teach  us  profound  moral  truths  ;  but  the  moment  we  at- 
tempt to  make  it  teach  science,  we  are  landed  in  hope- 
less difficulties.  From  the  birth  of  physical  science  to 
the  present  day  attempts  have  been  made  to  stop  the 
onward  march  of  Science  by  citing  texts  of  Scripture 
and  issuing  conciliar  decrees,  but  all  such  attempts  have 
resulted  in  disaster  to  the  Church.  It  is,  therefore,  high 
time  that  theologians  should  surrender  the  whole  do- 
main of  cosmology  to  the  scientists  and  interpret  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  refer  to  natural  phenomena 
by  the  light  of  Science  and  History.  As  a  moral  and 
religious  guide  the  Bible  will  never  be  surpassed — will 
ever  remain  indispensable — but  it  will  henceforth  be 
treated  not  as  a  verbally  and  infallibly  inspired  account 
of  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  but  as  "the  record  of 
a  progressive  (religious)  revelation,  divinely  adapted  to 


82    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  hard  heart,  the  dull  understanding,  and  the  slow  de- 
velopment of  mankind."  * 

The  account  of  creation  given  in  Genesis,  consider- 
ing the  time  when  and  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  was  produced,  is  a  marvelous  product  of  religious 
genius ;  and  this,  notwithstanding  the  possible  relic  of 
polytheism  involved  in  the  plural  form  (Elohim)  of  the 
name  of  the  Creator.  But  it  is  chiefly  valuable  as  a 
gem  of  ancient  thought.  It  shows  us  that  the  men  of 
those  far-off  ages  meditated  profoundly  on  the  great 
problems  of  Being  which  exercise  the  philosophic  minds 
of  our  own  generation.  It  brings  those  old  seers  and 
sages  near  to  our  hearts ;  and  while  we  are  able,  by  the 
light  of  science,  to  penetrate  further  into  the  dark  cor- 
ners of  Nature's  Temple  than  they  could,  yet  over  its 
portal  we  must  inscribe  their  immortal  words,  "  In  the 

BEGINNING  GoD  CHEATED  THE  HEAVENS  AND  THE  EARTH." 

Let  not,  then,  an  arrogant  Theology  destroy  the  poet's 
strain  or  mar  the  seer's  vision  by  inflating  it  with  a  tone 
or  meaning  it  never  could  have  had. 

From  what  has  been  said  we  conclude  that  Theology 
has  no  explanation  of  man's  origin  to  offer,  while  its 
attempted  refutation  of  the  evolutionist's  explanation 
rests  on  no  sure  warranty  of  Scripture,  and  is  contra- 
dicted by  all  the  facts  so  far  discovered.  The  evolu- 
tionary theory  has  its  difficulties ;  all  the  "  gaps "  are 
not  yet  filled  up ;  but  all  the  facts  point  in  this  direc- 
tion, and,  as  it  is  the  only  explanation  worthy  of  the 
name  of  the  great  problem  in  hand,  it  should  be  accepted 
— at  least,  until  a  better  one  is  established. 


*  Archdeacon    Farrar,   "  History  of   Interpretation,"   Bampton 
Lectures  for  1885,  Preface,  p.  x. 


MAN'S  ORIGIN  ACCORDING   TO   THEOLOGY.    83 

Science  and  Theology  have  been  arrayed  against 
each  other  long  enough.  They  are  wasting  precious 
energies  fighting  each  other  which  might  be  used  to 
better  purpose.  They  are  divinely  ordained  twin-sis- 
ters :  "  What  God  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man  put 
asunder." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE. 

Until  recently  it  was  generally  believed  that  the 
age  of  Man  did  not  exceed  six  thousand  years,  and  this 
is  still  considered,  in  some  quarters,  "the  orthodox 
view,"  but  whether  it  is  "  orthodox  "  we  shall  now  see. 
On  what  grounds  does  this  opinion  rest  ?  On  the  au- 
thority of  an  archbishop  in  the  Church — Dr.  Usher, 
who  lived  about  three  hundred  years  ago.  On  what 
did  he  base  his  estimate  ?  On  the  facts  of  archgeology  ? 
This  science  was  not  then  born.  "  His  leading  data," 
therefore,  to  quote  the  Eev.  Dr.  William  Smith,  editor 
of  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,"  etc.,  "  were,  first,  the 
adoption  of  the  numbers  of  the  Hebrew  text  for  the 
patriarchal  genealogies. 

"  Secondly,  the  reckoning  of  the  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  from  the  call  of  Abraham  to  the  Exodus; 
and,  lastly,  the  adhering  to  the  four  hundred  and  eighty 
years  for  the  period  from  the  Exodus  to  the  building 
of  the  Temple  of  Solomon."  * 

How  utterly  unreliable  arc  such  data  will  appear 
when  we  consider  two  facts:  First,  numbers  of  all 
things  are  even  now  most  liable  to  change,  but  before 


*  Smith's  "  Old  Testament  History  "  (Student's  Series),  p.  39. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RAGE.  85 

the  days  of  the  printing-press,  when  metals,  brick  tab- 
lets, animal-skins,  papyrus  (u  the  paper  reed  "  of  Egypt), 
and  vellum  were  used  instead  of  paper,  and  the  stylus 
took  the  place  of  the  sharp  pen,  or  the  well-defined 
"  type  "  of  the  printer,  how  much  more  liable  were  fig- 
ures to  be  mistaken  and  numbers  changed  !  *  But,  sec- 
ondly, when  it  is  remembered  that,  in  the  original  lan- 
guage of  the  Old  Testament  (the  Hebrew),  letters  were 
used  to  signify  numbers,  and  some  of  these  letters  have 
only  the  slightest  variations  from  one  another,  it  will 
at  once  be  understood  how  easily  an  ancient  scribe  or 
copyist  might  unintentionally  mistake  these  letters,  and 
so  introduce  endless  confusion  and  irreconcilable  dis- 
crepancies into  his  estimate.  Thus  the  letter  1  (pro- 
nounced Vav)  equals  six  (6),  while  i  {Resh)  equals  two 
hundred  (200) ;  and  the  reader  may  imagine  how  readily 
a  copyist,  in  reading  an  old  papyrus  manuscript,  might 
mistake  Kesh  for  Vav,  and  thus  make  a  difference  of 
one  hundred  and  ninety-four  (194)  in  the  original  esti- 
mate. In  this  way,  among  others,  serious  errors  have 
arisen  in  the  Bible  numbers.  To  cite  only  one  of  many 
striking  instances  of  such  errors,  we  are  told  in  II 
Chronicles  (xxi,  20)  that  Jehoram,  King  of  Judah,  "  was 
thirty-and-two  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  and 
he  reigned  in  Jerusalem  eight  years,  and  departed." 

Hence  he  died  when  he  was  forty  years  old.  In  the 
next  chapter  (xxii,  1,  2)  we  are  informed  that  "  the  in- 
habitants of  Jerusalem  made  Ahaziah  his  youngest  son 
king  in  his  stead  ;  forty-and-two  years  old  was  Ahaziah 
when  he  began  to  reign."  Therefore  the  youngest  son 
of  King  Jehoram  must  have  been  two  years  older  than 


Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  article  on  "  Paleography." 


86    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

his  father !  A  friend,  who  first  called  my  attention  to 
this  mistake,  said  that  his  good  mother  (Requiescat  in 
2?ace  /),  when  he,  as  a  boy,  discovered  this  error  and  in- 
sisted that  it  was  an  error,  told  him  that  "the  Bible 
was  God's  word,  and  he  must  not  question  any  of  its 
statements.  Such  passages  were  doubtless  inserted  to 
try  one's  faith  !  "  Let  no  one  smile  at  this  good  wom- 
an's "  faith,"  for  it  is  of  a  piece  with  the  "  faith  "  of 
many  profound  theologians — at  least  of  "  sixty  years 
since." 

The  correct  age  of  Ahaziah  is  probably  given  in  II 
Kings  (viii,  2G),  where  it  is  said  he  was  only  "  two-and- 
twenty  years  old  "  when  he  began  to  reign  ;  he  was, 
therefore,  something  less  than  eighteen  years  younger 
than  his  father;  but  this  passage  contradicts  that  of  II 
Chronicles,  and  hence  we  see  how  hopeless  is  the  attempt 
to  maintain  the  inspiration  of  Biblical  figures. 

Dr.  Smith,  who  is  a  decidedly  "  conservative " 
writer,  makes  some  wise  remarks  on  this  subject  in  the 
note  already  referred  to.  "  The  generations  of  the  pa- 
triarchs which  form  our  only  guide  "  for  the  period  be- 
tween the  Creation  and  the  Flood,  he  says,  u  are  given 
differently  in  different  copies  of  the  Scriptures;  the 
sum  being  in  the  LXX  six  hundred  and  six  years  longer, 
and  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  three  hundred  and 
forty-nine  years  shorter  than  in  the  received  Hebrew 
text.  The  ancient  Chronologers  give  further  varia- 
tions." "  The  LXX "  thus  referred  to  is  the  Septua- 
gent  (seventy)  or  Greek  Version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
supposed  to  have  been  made  by  "  seventy  "  (or  rather 
seventy-two)  scholars  at  Alexandria  in  Egypt  about  280 
years  before  Christ.  It  is  of  special  importance  as  the 
version  of  the  Scriptures  which  the  early  disciples  used, 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RAGE.  87 

while  its  variation  in  the  age  of  the  world  from  that  of 
the  Hebrew  original  is  more  especially  worthy  of  note, 
as  we  shall  presently  see. 

The  tribe  of  the  Samaritans  originated  about  675 
years  before  Christ  by  an  Assyrian  king's  colonizing 
Samaria,  which  be  had  conquered,  with  the  population 
of  other  conquered  cities  and  districts.  From  that  day 
to  the  time  when  our  Lord  talked  to  the  Samaritan 
woman  by  Jacob's  well  (John  iv,  9)  the  Samaritans  and 
Jews  had  no  dealings  with  each  other,  but  rather  set 
up  opposing  systems  of  worship,  the  former  on  Mount 
Gerizim — where  they  are  found  to-day — and  the  latter 
at  Jerusalem.  But  they  had  one  thing  in  common,  viz., 
the  Pentateuch,  or  Five  Books  ascribed  to  Moses. 

The  origin  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  has  given 
rise  to  much  controversy.  The  two  most  usual  opin- 
ions are :  1.  That  it  came  into  the  hands  of  the  Samari- 
tans as  an  inheritance  from  the  Ten  Tribes  of  Israel, 
whom  they  succeeded.  2.  That  it  was  introduced  by 
King  Manasseh,  at  the  time  of  the  foundation  of  the 
Samaritan  sanctuary  on  Mount  Gerizim.  As  Dr. 
Smith  says,  u  the  ancient  chronologers  give  further 
variations  "  in  the  dates  found  in  the  numerous  versions 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Indeed,  one  chronolo^er  tells 
us  that  u  he  collected  upward  of  two  hundred  different 
calculations,  the  shortest  of  which  reckons  only  thirty- 
four  hundred  and  eighty-three  years  between  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  and  the  commencement  of  the  vulvar 
era,  and  the  longest  sixty-nine  hundred  and  eighty- 
four." 

The  difference  amounts  to  thirty-five  centuries  ;  sure- 
ly we  must,  therefore,  agree  with  him  that  "  the  so-called 
era  of  the  creation  of  the  world  is  a  purely  conventional 


88    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

and  arbitrary  epoch  "  ;  *  or  with  another,  that  Revela- 
tion, whatever  its  authenticity,  has  not  revealed  the  age 
of  the  world."  f 

The  first  fact,  then,  to  be  clearly  grasped  and  borne 
in  mind  is  that  "  the  Bible  has  no  chronology."  The 
dates  we  find  in  it,  especially  the  genealogies  of  the 
patriarchs,  are  the  most  uncertain  of  all  uncertain  quan- 
tities, and  hence  the  accepted  chronology — i.  e.,  Arch- 
bishop Usher's  estimate — is  only  one  of  two  hundred 
worthless  estimates.  It  is  amazing,  therefore,  that  so 
much  anxiety  should  exist  to  preserve  Usher's  estimate, 
and  that  so  much  opposition  to  the  scientists'  demand 
for  a  lengthened  chronology  should  be  manifested.  Even 
Dr.  Geikie  and  Canon  Rawlinson,  while  acknowledging 
the  unreliability  of  the  data  upon  wThich  Usher  founded 
his  system,  and  confessing  that  the  age  of  man  is  some- 
what greater  than  is  commonly  supposed,  yet  strive  most 
earnestly  to  press  human  history  within  a  period  of  six 
thousand  years.  % 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  popular  view  of  the 
antiquity  of  man — having  seen  that  this  view  rests  on 
so  unreliable  data  that  we  can  not  put  any  confidence 
in  estimates  based  on  such  a  foundation — we  are  now 
free  to  hear  what  Science  has  to  say  on  this  interesting 
subject.  I  arrange  the  evidence  it  affords  under  the 
following  somewhat  arbitrary  but  convenient  heads : 

First,  that  furnished  by  the  general  principles  of 
evolution.  If  man  is  the  last  link  in  the  chain  of  ani- 
mal life — that  is  to  say,  if,  as  we  have  ample  reason  to 

*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  on  "  Chronology." 
f  Winchell,  "  Preadamites,"  p.  105. 

X  Geikie's  "  Hours  with  the  Bible/'  I,  chapters  ix,  x ;  Rawlinson, 
"  Origin  of  Nations." 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE.  89 

believe,  man  was  developed  from  a  lower  organism  and 
did  not  come  into  existence  miraculously  endowed  with 
knowledge  and  civilization — then  it  certainly  must  have 
taken  many  thousands  of  years  for  him  to  learn,  in  the 
School  of  Experience,  language,  arts,  religion,  etc. 
"  The  starting-point  is  the  hard  point,"  says  the  wise 
proverb,  and  so  we  can  not  estimate  the  early  progress 
of  the  human  race  by  the  rate  of  its  modern  progress. 
The  movement  of  mankind  resembles  that  of  a  large 
rolling  stone,  which,  starting  very  slowly,  gathers  mo- 
mentum and  so  increases  its  speed  the  further  it  rolls. 
These  truths  may  be  accepted  by  even  the  anti-evolu- 
tionist. Whether  one  believes  that  man  has  been  devel- 
oped from  a  lower  organism  or  not,  he  must  admit  that 
civilization  is  a  slow  growth ;  that  man  has  gradually 
and  painfully  toiled  upward  either  from  a  state  of  origi- 
nal simplicity  or  from  a  state  of  savagery.  On  either 
hypothesis,  it  must  have  taken  many  centuries  for  him 
to  attain  to  the  lofty  pinnacle  of  modern  civilization ; 
and  we  shall  see  that  the  period  of  such  development 
commonly  assigned  is  far  too  short. 

In  the  second  place,  we  have  the  evidence  of  man's 
extreme  antiquity  afforded  by  Geology.  "  One  of  the 
most  remarkable  phenomena  affecting  the  conditions  of 
life  in  Europe  in  recent  geological  epochs  is  the  exist- 
ence of  a  period  of  long  duration  throughout  the  north- 
ern  hemisphere  of  a  temperature  resembling  that  of  the 
Arctic  regions  at  the  present  time.  The  mountainous 
regions  of  Scotland  and  Wales— then  probably  of  a 
much  higher  elevation — resembled  Greenland  at  the 
present  time;  and  this  Arctic  temperature  gradually 
extended  southward  to  the  Alps  and  the  Pyrenees.  The 
glaciers  (gigantic  ice-mountains),  formed  under  the  in- 


90    EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

fluence  of  perpetual  frost  and  snow,  descended  from 
those  and  other  mountains  into  the  valleys  and  plains 
over  the  greater  portion  of  central  Europe  and  northern 
Asia ;  and  this  condition  of  things,  pertaining  to  what 
is  known  as  the  Glacial  Period,  was  one  of  prolonged 
duration."  Subsequently,  "  a  gradual  but  persistent  rise 
of  temperature  carried  the  lines  of  ice  and  perpetual 
snow  farther  and  farther  northward,  excepting  in  regions 
of  great  elevations,  as  in  the  Swiss  Alps,"  where  to  this 
day,  as  is  well  known,  are  found  immense  relics  of  this 
Ice  Period — the  delight  of  modern  travelers.  This  rise 
of  temperature  was  necessarily  accompanied  by  the 
melting  of  the  vast  glaciers  accumulated  in  the  mount- 
ain valleys  throughout  the  protracted  period  of  cold. 
The  broken  rocks  and  soil  of  the  highlands  were  swept 
into  the  valleys  by  torrents  of  melted  ice  and  snow ; 
the  lower  valleys  were  hollowed  out  and  reformed  under 
this  novel  agent ;  and  the  landscape  received  its  present 
outlines  of  valley, estuary, and  river-beds  from  the  changes 
wrought  in  this  "  Diluvian  Epoch,"  as  it  has  been  well 
called. 

Within  this  late  Tertiary  or  Quaternary  Period  are 
found  the  remains  of  animal  life  contemporary  with 
primeval  man  and  his  earliest  art.  "  Here  are  the  re- 
mains of  now  wholly  extinct  species  of  mammoth,  ele- 
phant, bear,  hyena,  reindeer,  elk,  etc.,  buried  with  flint 
instruments,  and  other  ingenious  traces  of  primitive 
art."  * 

In  those  days,  a  brilliant  writer  assures  us,  "  From 
a  country  now  known  as  Picardy  (in  France)  the  ancient 
inhabitants  of  Abbeville  or  Amiens   could  pass   into 

*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Archaeology." 


THE  AGE   OF  THE  HUMAN  RAGE.  91 

Great  Britain  without  crossing  the  English  Channel. 
The  British  Isles  were  united  to  Gaul  (France)  by  an 
isthmus  which  has  since  been  submerged.  The  level 
of  the  Baltic  and  of  the  North  Sea  was  four  hundred 
feet  higher  than  it  is  at  the  present  day.  The  val- 
ley of  the  river  Somme  was  not  hollowed  out  to  the 
depth  it  has  now  attained"  ;  it  was  in  places  more  than 
two  hundred  feet  above  its  present  level.  "  Sicily  was 
joined  to  Africa,  Barbary  to  Spain.  .  .  .  Hence,"  he 
adds,  "  we  know  with  certainty  that  European  man  was 
contemporaneous  with  the  extinct  species  of  the  qua- 
ternary period  (already  mentioned),  that  he  witnessed 
the  upheaval  of  the  Alps,*  and  the  extension  of  the 
glaciers ;  in  a  word,  that  he  lived  thousands  of  years 
before  the  dawn  of  the  remotest  historical  traditions."  f 
Next,  we  have  the  abundant  and  conclusive  evidence 
of  man's  extreme  antiquity  afforded  by  Archaeology. 
"  Classical  antiquity,"  says  M .  Joly,  "  tells  us  of  four 
successive  ages — the  ages  of  gold,  silver,  bronze,  and 
iron.  Under  the  reign  of  (the  god)  Saturn — that  is, 
during  the  golden  age — men  enjoyed  a  Jong  life,  which 
they  spent  in  the  midst  of  happiness,  peace,  and  plenty. 
But  the  horrors  of  war  were  soon  let  loose  among  them  ; 
iron  took  the  place  of  gold ;  a  rapid  decadence  began, 
and  man  retains  at  the  present  day  only  faint  traces  of 
his  primitive  perfection  and  happiness." 

"  Another  myth  of  later  date,  and  more  in  harmony 
with  the  facts  observed,  tells  us  that  the  earth  was 
originally  inhabited  by  a  race  of  giants,  and,  by  a  sub- 

*  "  The  Alps  was  upheaved  at  end  of  Eocene.  There  may  have 
been  continental  but  not  mountain  upheaval  in  the  Glacial  period." 
— Le  Conte. 

f  Joly's  "  Man  before  Metals,"  pp.  183,  184 


92    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

sequent  creation,  of  a  race  of  dwarfs.  The  giants 
dwelt  among  the  rocks,  and  built  their  walls  of  Cyclo- 
pean masonry  ;  they  carried  stone  clubs,  and  were  igno- 
rant of  the  use  of  metals.  The  dwarfs,  far  weaker  but 
at  the  same  time  far  more  industrious  than  the  giants, 
inaugurated  the  age  of  bronze.  They  sought  this  metal 
in  the  bowels  of  the  earth,  and,  with  the  help  of  fire, 
forged  precious  ornaments  and  shining  arms,  which 
they  gave  to  men.  Finally,  giants  and  dwarfs  gave 
place  to  the  men  of  the  iron  age,  and  were  forced  to 
abandon  the  land.  It  is  curious  to  see  poetry  thus 
forestall  history,  and  mention  distinctly  the  series  of 
epochs  which  are  generally  admitted  by  modern  science. 
"Archaeology  combines  with  Geology  to  show  that 
human  civilization  has  passed  through  three  more  or 
less  distinct  stages,  in  Europe  at  least,  for  which  the 
names  of  stone,  bronze,  and  iron  ages  have  been  re- 
tained, although  they  may  be,  perhaps,  too  suggestive 
of  the  myth."  *  "The  Stone  Period,  as  the  name  im- 
plies, is  that  in  which  the  rude  aboriginal  arts,  which 
the  commonest  necessities  of  man  call  into  operation,  are 
assumed  to  have  been  employed  on  such  available  ma- 
terials as  stone,  horn,  bone,  etc.  The  Bronze  Period 
may  admit  of  subdivision,  though  the  term  is  constantly 
employed  in  the  most  comprehensive  sense  for  that  era 
of  progress  in  which  the  metallic  arts  appear  to  have 
been  introduced  and  slowly  developed;  first,  by  the 
simple  use  of  native  copper,  followed  by  the  applica- 
tion of  fire,  the  construction  of  molds,  and  the  disco v- 
ery  of  such  chemical  processes  as  the  alloying  of  copper 
and  tin,  and  the  consequent  production  of  bronze. 

*  "  Man  before  Metals,"  pp.  19,  20. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE.  93 

"  The  Iron  Period  marks  the  era  of  matured  metal- 
lurgy arts,  and  the  accompanying  progress  consequent 
on  the  degree  of  civilization,  which  is  the  inevitable 
consequent  of  such  a  state  of  things."  *  It  may  be  well 
to  refute,  just  here,  an  objection  to  this  division  of  pre- 
historic ages  which  some  writers  allege.  "  The  theory," 
says  Dr.  0.  Geikie,  "  of  widely  separate  ages  for  old 
and  new  stone  tools,  and  for  bronze  and  iron,  is  one 
of  those  scientific  fancies  which  further  investigation 
overthrows."  He  then  quotes  the  Duke  of  Argyll's  re- 
mark that  "  there  is  no  proof  whatever  that  such  ages 
ever  existed  in  the  world."  f  Both  of  these  authors 
think  that,  because  all  nations  have  at  certain  times 
used  stone  tools,  and  because  the  ages  shade  into  one 
another,  and  are  often  simultaneous,  we  have  no  right 
to  talk  of  stone,  bronze,  and  iron  periods.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  see  the  force  of  such  reasoning.  Archaeolo- 
gists recognize  all  this,  and  yet  feel  justified  in  using 
such  terms.  .  Thus,  M.  Joly  says :  "  It  is  sometimes 
rather  difficult  to  draw  the  line  sharply  between  the 
various  ages  we  have  just  enumerated  ;  the  work  of  one 
is  often  carried  on  into  another."  And  again  :  "  The 
three  ages  of  Stone,  Bronze,  and  Iron  have  not  been  in 
all  places  and  at  all  times  successive,  but  very  often  simul- 
taneous. Though  they  mark  three  stages  in  the  civili- 
zation of  nations,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  have  passed 
through  them  at  the  same  period.  The  chronological 
value  of  these  ages  is  not  alwa}7s,  therefore,  absolute 
and    general,   but    sometimes    purely   local   and   rela- 

*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article,  "  Archaeology." 

f  "Hours  with  the  Bible,"  i,  p.  134;  Argyll's  "Primeval  Man," 

p.  181 ;  compare  Lubbock's  "  Origin  of  Civilization,"  Appendix,  pp. 

496,  et  seq.,  a  reply  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll. 


94:    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

tive."  *  This  is  precisely  what  might  have  been  ex- 
pected. It  would  be  unreasonable,  contrary  to  the 
fundamental  proposition  of  evolution,  to  expect  that  in 
every  case  tribes  and  nations  would  suddenly  leap  from 
the  stone  to  the  bronze,  or  from  the  bronze  to  the  iron 
age ;  these  periods  ought  to  shade  into  each  other  like 
light  and  darkness.  It  would  be  equally  irrational  to 
suppose  that  all  nations  have  passed  through  these  stages 
of  development  at  the  same  period.  Assuming,  then, 
that  the  ages  in  question  really  existed,  I  proceed  to  dis- 
cuss the  phenomena  of  each. 

The  Stone  Age,  as  already  intimated,  is  divided  into 
the  Old  or  Palaeolithic  and  the  New  or  Neolithic  Pe- 
riods. The  cave-dwellers  of  the  Old  Stone  Age  were, 
to  all  appearances,  contemporaneous  with  the  extinct 
animals  aforementioned — the  mammoth,  the  woolly- 
haired  rhinoceros,  the  great  cave-bear,  etc.  In  the  first 
chapter  of  his  admirable  little  book,  already  quoted 
more  than  once,  M.  Joly  gives  a  history  of  the  discov- 
eries of  that  great  naturalist,  Boucher  de  Perthes,  who, 
"among  the  ancient  tombs,  the  caves,  the  peat-mosses, 
the  diluvian  of  the  valleys,  and  of  the  bone-caves," 
sought  and  collected  the  various  remains  of  prehistoric 
times,  which  finally  established  the  extreme  antiquity 
of  man.  .  .  .  On  March  23, 1863  "(we  are  careful  to  give 
this  memorable  date),  "  M.  Boucher  de  Perthes  was 
gratified  by  the  discovery,  at  Moulin-Quignon,  of  the 
famous  jaw-bone,  or  rather  the  part  of  a  human  jaw- 
bone, which  became  the  subject  of  so  much  contro- 
versy. It  lay  imbedded  about  five  yards  deep  in  the 
dark,  sandy  gravel.     The  same  bed  contained  carved 

*  "  Man  before  Metals,"  pp.  20-30. 


TEE  AGE   OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE.  95 

flint  axes  and  teeth  of  the  mammoth."  The  excite- 
ment produced  by  this  discovery  was  so  great  that  a 
congress  of  the  most  eminent  French  and  English 
scientists  was  assembled,  and,  after  a  thorough  "  trial 
of  the  jaw-bone,"  "  the  immense  majority  of  geologists, 
both  French  and  foreign,  declared  that  the  man  of 
Moulin- Quignon  had  witnessed  the  geological  phe- 
nomenon which  had  deposited  the  beds  of  diluvian 
gravel."  The  discovery  of  other  bones  (skulls)  con- 
firmed this  opinion.* 

In  the  third  chapter  of  his  work  (Part  I)  M.  Joly 
discusses  "  the  bone-caves,"  of  which  Kent's  Cavern  in 
Devonshire,  England,  is  one  of  the  most  famous.  Its 
"lowest  deposit  is  a  breccia  of  water- worn  rock  and 
red  clay,  interspersed  with  numerous  bones  of  the  great 
cave-bear.  Over  this  a  stalagmitic  flooring  had  been 
formed,  in  some  places  to  a  depth  of  several  feet,  by  the 
long-protracted  deposition  of  carbonate  of  lime,  held  in 
solution  by  the  drippings  from  the  roof  above  this  an- 
cient flooring,  itself  a  work  of  centuries;  later  floods 
had  superimposed  a  thick  layer  of  cave-earth,  in  some 
cases  even  entirely  filling  up  extensive  galleries  with  a 
deposit  of  drift-mud  and  stones,  within  which  are  im- 
bedded the  evidences  of  contemporaneous  life — bones 
and  teeth  of  the  fossil  elephant,  rhinoceros,  horse,  cave- 
bear,  hyena,  reindeer,  Irish  elk ;  and  along  with  these 
numerous  weapons  and  implements  of  chipped  flint, 
horn,  and  bone — the  unmistakable  proof  of  the  presence 
of  man.  These,  again,  have  been  sealed  down,  in  an- 
other prolonged  period  of  rest,  by  a  new  flooring  of 
stalagmite  ;  and  thus  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  those 


*  "  Man  before  Metals,"  pp.  42-47. 


96    EVOLUTION-  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

cave  deposits  render  them  specially  favorable  for  the 
preservation  of  a  coherent  record  of  the  period."  * 

"  It  is  incontestable  that  Kent's  Cavern  long  served 
as  a  dwelling  to  the  primeval  inhabitants  of  the  coun- 
try, that  they  had  their  meals  in  it,  and  worked  in  flint 
and  bone  there,  etc.,  until  the  day  when  the  thick  layer 
of  stalagmite  which  covers  the  ossiferous  sediment  was 
formed." f  "But,  besides  the  actual  deposits  in  the 
caves,  the  river  gravels  of  the  same  period  have  their 
distinct  disclosures.  The  spear-heads,  disks,  scrapers, 
and  other  large  implements  of  chipped  flint  are  of  rare 
occurrence  in  the  cave  breccia.  Their  size  was  sufficient 
to  prevent  their  being  readily  dropped  and  buried  be- 
yond reach  of  recovery  in  the  muddy  flooring  of  the 
old  cave  dwellings ;  and  the  same  cause  preserved  them 
from  destruction  when  exposed  to  the  violence  involved 
in  the  accumulation  of  the  old  river  drifts.  In  the 
north  of  France,  and  England  from  Bedfordshire  south- 
ward to  the  English  Channel,  in  beds  of  ancient  gravel, 
sand,  and  clay  of  the  river  valleys,  numerous  discoveries 
of  such  large  flint  implements  have  been  made.  .  .  . 
The  twenty  centuries  of  French  and  English  history 
form  but  a  fraction  of  the  time  which  has  elapsed  since 
the  stone  implements  of  prehistoric  tribes  were  first 
buried  under  beds  of  gravel  and  sand  by  the  rivers  now 
represented  by  the  Thames  and  the  Somme.  Still 
vaster,  however,  is  the  idea  of  antiquity  suggested  by 
the  geographical  conformation  of  such  valleys  as  those 
in  which  these  rivers  flow.  These  drift-beds  lie  on 
their  sides  often  one  to  two  hundred  feet,  and  even 

*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Archaeology." 
f  "  Man  before  Metals,"  p.  62. 


TEE  AGE  OF  TEE  EUMAX  RACE.  97 

more,  above  the  present  flood-levels.  As  such  highest 
cleposits  seem  to  mark  the  time  when  the  rivers  flowed 
at  heights  so  far  above  the  present  channels,  it  follows 
that  the  drift-beds,  and  the  men  whose  works  they  in- 
close, must  have  existed  during  a  great  part  of  the  time 
occupied  by  the  rivers  in  excavating  their  valleys  down 
to  their  present  beds."  *  "  But,"  replies  Dr.  C.  Geikie, 
"  all  this  is  unsatisfactory.  It  is  indeed  quite  impossi- 
ble to  fix  the  age  of  such  drift-deposits.  Local  floods 
work  great  changes  and  the  shifting  of  river-beds  also 
works  great  changes,  and  all  rivers  are  much  larger  in  a 
state  of  nature  than  when  human  settlement  has  drained 
off  the  surface  water."  f  "  Granting  it  as  possible," 
answers  Dr.  E.  B.  Tylor,  "  that  the  rivers  by  which  this 
enormous  operation  (the  deposition  of  drifts)  was  per- 
formed were  of  greater  volume  and  proportionately  still 
greater  power  in  flood-time  than  the  present  streams, 
which  seem  so  utterly  inadequate  to  their  valleys,  and 
granting,  also,  that  under  different  conditions  of  climate 
the  causing  debacles  by  ground-ice  may  have  been  a 
powerful  excavating  agent,  nevertheless,  with  all  such 
allowances  the  reckoning  of  ages  seems  vastly  out  of 
proportion  to  historical  chronology."  %  "  The  great  al- 
luvial valley  of  the  river  Forth  (Scotland)  has  yielded 
relics  of  the  fossil  elephant  connecting  it  with  man.  In  at 
least  one  case  its  tusks  were  found  in  such  perfect  condi- 
tion as  to  be  available  for  the  ivory-turner,  though  lying 
imbedded  at  a  depth  of  twenty  feet  in  the  bowlder  clay. 
But  in  the  neighboring  valley  the  fossil  whale  has  not  only 

•"Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  articles  on   "Archaeology"  and 
"  Anthropology." 

f  "  Hours  with  the  Bible,"  i,  p.  134. 

%  "  Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Anthropology." 


98    EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

been  repeatedly  found  far  inland,  buried  in  the  alluvial 
soil,  at  levels  varying  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  feet 
above  high- water  mark,  but  in  at  least  two  instances  the 
rude  lance  or  harpoon  of  deer's  horn  lay  alongside  of 
the  skeletons ;  and  near  another  of  them  were  found 
pieces  of  stag-horn,  artificially  cut,  and  one  of  them  per- 
forated with  a  hole  about  an  inch  in  diameter.  Flint 
implements,  an  oaken  quern,  and  other  ingenious  traces 
of  primitive  art  recovered  from  the  same  alluvial  soil, 
all  tell  of  a  time  when  the  British  savage  hunted  the 
whale  in  the  shallows  of  a  tide  at  the  base  of  hills  now 
between  twenty  and  thirty  feet  above  the  highest  tides 
and  seven  miles  distant  from  the  sea."  *  Every  one  in 
the  least  familiar  with  archseology  will  also  remember 
that  "  borings  made  in  the  alluvium  of  the  Nile  Valley 
to  a  depth  of  sixty  feet "  revealed  "  fragments  of  burned 
brick  and  pottery,  showing  that  people  advanced  enough 
in  the  arts  to  bake  brick  and  pottery  have  inhabited 
the  valley  during  the  long  period  required  for  the  Nile 
inundations  to  deposit  sixty  feet  of  mud  at  a  rate  prob- 
ably not  averaging  more  than  a  few  inches  in  a  cent- 
ury." These,  of  course,  are  only  a  few  instances  of  the 
cave-deposits  and  river  drifts,  but  they  serve  as  exam- 
ples of  the  evidence  of  man's  extreme  antiquity,  and  I 
think  any  one  who  wTill  fairly  consider  such  facts  will, 
notwithstanding  certain  superficial  objections  which  may 
be  raised,  acknowledge  that  six  thousand  years  is  far  too 
short  a  period  to  assign  to  the  human  race. 

The  Old  Stone  (Palaeolithic)  Period,  thus  briefly 
glanced  at,  with  its  characteristic  implements  of  chipped 
flint,  was  followed  by  the  second  or  New  Stone  (Neo- 


*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Archaeology." 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUM  AX  RACE.  99 

lithic)  Period,  characterized  by  weapons  of  polished 
stone.  "  The  discovery  and  exploration  of  the  ancient 
lake  dwellings  of  Switzerland  and  other  countries,  in- 
cluding the  Crannoges  of  Ireland  and  Scotland,  and  the 
refuse-heaps  of  Denmark,  Scotland,  and  elsewhere,  have 
greatly  extended  the  illustrations  of  this  period,  and 
given  deiiniteness  to  the  evidences  of  its  antiquity." 
An  eminent  Danish  naturalist  (Steenstrup),  who  paid 
special  attention  to  the  peat -mosses  of  his  country, 
thinks  that  "  ten  to  twelve  thousand  years  went  to  the 
accumulation  and  transformation  of  the  remains  of  the 
vegetation "  which  constitutes  these  peat-bogs ;  the 
vegetation  has  partly  or  wholly  disappeared  from  the 
district.  "  The  Stone  Age  terminates  with  these  for- 
ests." *  The  Bronze  Period  begins  apparently  with 
"the  recognition  of  the  native  copper  as  a  malleable 
metal,  and  then  as  a  material  capable  of  being  melted 
and  molded  into  form  by  the  application  of  heat,  which 
was  followed  up  by  the  art  of  smelting  the  crude  ores 
so  as  to  extract  the  metal." 

"  It  was  long  assumed,  alike  by  historians  and  anti- 
quarians, that  the  beautiful  bronze  swords,  spear-heads, 
shields,  torques,  etc.,  so  frequently  discovered,  were 
mere  relics  of  foreign  conquest  or  barter,  and  they  were 
variously  assigned  to  Egyptian,  Phoenician,  Roman,  or 
Danish  origin.  But  this  gratuitous  assumption  has 
been  disproved  by  the  repeated  discovery  of  the  molds 
for  molding  them,  as  well  as  of  the  refuse  castings,  and 
even  beds  of  charcoal,  scorise,  and  other  indications  of 
metallurgy,  on  the  sites  wdierethey  have  been  formed." 

*  See  July's  masterly  discussion  of  this  point,  "  Man  before  Met- 
als," chapters  v-vii,  inclusive. 


100  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

The  abrupt  transition  from  the  Stone  to  the  Bronze 
Period  in  Europe  the  author  just  quoted  explains  by 
the  supposition  that  "  the  metallurgic  arts  of  the  north 
of  Europe  are  derived  from  a  foreign  source,  either  by 
conquest  or  traffic.  The  direct  intercourse  between  the 
countries  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea  and  the  Tin  Islands 
—as  the  only  known  parts  of  the  British  Islands  are 
called  in  the  earliest  allusions  which  are  made  to  them 
by  the  ancient  historians— Herodotus,  Aristotle,  and 
Polybius — abundantly  accounts  for  the  introduction  of 
such  knowledge  to  the  native  Britons  at  a  very  remote 
period." 

The  Iron  Age  is  that  in  which  iron  superseded 
bronze  for  arms,  sword-blades,  spear-heads,  axes,  dag- 
gers, knives,  etc.,  and  from  this  period  we  reach  the 
era  of  authentic  history  during  which  man  has  struggled 
upward  through  the  savage,  hunter  state  and  the  pas- 
toral state  to  his  present  agricultural  and  civilized 
stage. 

A  word  now  on  prehistoric  man  in  America,  and  I 
pass  to  the  documentary  evidence  of  man's  extreme  an- 
tiquity. "  The  Indian  red-skin,"  says  M.  Joly,  "  living 
in  a  state  of  barbarism  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  can 
not  be  called  the  primitive  American,  nor  were  the 
luxuriant  forests  where  he  hunted  his  prey  truly  prime- 
val, for  they  were  preceded  by  other  forests,  which 
themselves  did  not  deserve  the  name  of  virgin  since 
they  had  already  been  trodden  by  the  foot  of  man, 
whose  remains  lie  buried  beneath  their  own.  At  New 
Orleans,  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  an  entire  hu- 
man skeleton  was  found  buried  beneath  four  ancient 
forests.  Dr.  Dowler  attributes  an  age  of  fifty-seven 
thousand  years  to  these  remains.    We  can  not  guarantee 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE.  101 

the  accuracy  of  these  figures,  but,  if  this  single  fact  were 
established  beyond  dispute,  it  would  be  in  itself  a  proof 
of  the  great  antiquity  of  the  human  race  in  America. 
Other  discoveries  of    no    less  weight  corroborate  our 
opinion."     Human  bones  have  been  found  near  Natchez 
deeply   buried   with  long -extinct    species   of  animals. 
From  a  coral  reef  in  Florida,  which  Prof.  Agassiz  con- 
siders to  be  "  more  than  ten  thousand  years  old,"  hu- 
man bones  were  extracted.     In  the  caves  of  Brazil  hu- 
man remains  were  found  entombed  with  the  bones  of 
fossil  animals ;    while  the  burial  -  places  of  Pern,  the 
celebrated  "  Mounds  "  in  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  Ohio,  and 
elsewhere  have  yielded  to  the  researches  of  the  archae- 
ologists treasures  as  valuable  as  they  were  unexpected. 
Their  age  is  unknown  ;  but  many  of  them  date,  it  would 
seem,  from  a  period  anterior  to  the  Neolithic  Age  of  the 
New  World."  *     Dr.  Charles  C.  Abbott,  the  eminent 
anthropologist  of  Trenton,  N.  J.,  in  an  able  paper  read 
before  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement 
of    Science    (Cleveland,    Ohio,    August,    1888),    said : 
"  There  was  a  time  when  to  all  appearances  American 
archaeology  would  have  to  be  squeezed  into  the  cramped 
quarters  of  ten  thousand  years  ;  but  we  are  pretty  sure 
of  twenty  or  even  thirty  thousand  now."    And  he  gave 
facts  and  reasons  to  prove  this  conclusion.     He  closes  his 
paper  with  these  eloquent  and  significant  words  :  "  As 
I  wander  along  the  pleasant  shores  of  the  Delaware 
Piver,  seeing  it  but  a  meager  stream   between  high 
banks,  in  midsummer ;  or  in  winter,  swollen  and  choked 
with  ice,  until  these  are  almost  hidden,  I  recall  what 
time  this  same  stream  was  the  mighty  channel  of  gla- 

*  "  Man  before  Metals,"  Part  I,  chap.  vii. 


102  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

cial  floods  pouring  seaward  from  the  mountains  beyond, 
and  picture  the  primitive  hunter  of  that  ancient  time, 
armed  with  but  a  sharpened  stone,  in  quest  of  unwary 
game.  And  later,  when  the  floods  had  abated  and  the 
waters  filled  but  the  channel  of  to-day,  I  recall  that 
more  skillful  folk,  wTho  with  spear  and  knife  captured 
whatsoever  creature  their  needs  demanded — the  earlier 
and  later  Chippers  of  Argil  lite.  These  passed,  and  the 
Indian,  with  his  jasper,  quartz,  copper,  and  polished 
stone,  looms  up,  as  others  fade  away.  His  history,  reach- 
ing forward  almost  to  the  present,  I  leave  in  the  hands 
of  others  to  record." 

The  fourth  and  last  source  of  the  evidence  proving 
man's  extreme  antiquity  which  we  shall  glance  at  is  the 
documentary  evidence. 

Here  it  is  important  to  remember  at  once  the  fact 
that,  according  to  the  traditional  and  popular  view,  the 
human  race  has  had  two  beginnings — one  in  Adam,  the 
other  in  Noah.  All  the  Adamic  race,  except  Noah's 
family,  was  destroyed  by  the  Flood,  and  hence  all  the 
nations  on  the  globe  to-day  are,  according  to  this  view, 
descendants  from  those  eight  persons  in  the  Ark. 
Noah's  Deluge,  according  to  Usher's  chronology,  oc- 
curred 2348  b.  c,  and  therefore  we  are  to  believe  that 
the  mighty  civilizations  of  Egypt,  Babylonia,  China, 
India,  etc.,  originated  within  that  period.  Abraham 
went  down  into  Egypt  about  1921  b.  c,  and  he  there 
found  a  great  monarchy  in  existence — nay,  more,  he 
left  behind  him  large  empires,  with  magnificent  cities, 
arts,  sciences,  religion,  over  which  ruled  such  kings  as 
Sargon  I.  And  we  are  to  believe  that  such  civiliza- 
tion— such  immense  nations — grew  up  within  the  short 
period  of  four  hundred  and  twenty-seven  years — this 


THE  AGE   OF  TEE  HUMAN  RACE.  103 

too,  from  three  families.  Impossible  !  except,  of  course, 
upon  the  supposition  of  repeated  miracles  j  but  when 
Miracle  comes  in,  Science  steps  aside  and  doffs  her 
cap.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  conservative  Canon 
Kawlinson  assures  us  that  "  the  establishment  of  a 
settled  monarchy  in  Egypt  occurred  between  b.  c.  2450 
and  b.  c.  2250."  That  is  to  say,  the  Egyptian  mon- 
archy existed  in  a  "settled"  form  one  hundred  and 
two  years  before  its  founder — Ham — left  the  Ark! 
"  Oh,  no,"  our  author  replies,  "  according  to  the  Sep- 
tuagint (Greek)  version  of  the  Bible,  the  date  of  the 
deluge  was  certainly  anterior  to  b.  c.  3000."  *  But 
we  have  seen  that  the  Septuagint  Version  is  contra- 
dicted by  the  Hebrew  original,  and,  since  this  is  ac- 
cepted by  all  theologians  as  the  most  authentic  record 
— the  foundation  of  all  other  versions — we  set  aside  Dr. 
Bawlinson's  appeal  to  the  dates  of  the  Septuagint  as 
simply  the  result  of  a  preconceived  theory  which  land- 
ed him  in  a  dilemma  from  which  there  was  no  other 
way  of  escape.  But  even  if  we  grant  the  Canon  the 
use  of  the  Septuagint  date,  yet  we  might  forcibly 
urge  that  a  "  settled "  monarchy  like  that  of  Egypt 
at  the  time  referred  to  could  not  have  grown  up  in 
those  days  of  slow  progress  during  the  short  period  of 
five  hundred  and  fifty  years  from  one  man's  family 
or  even  from  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth  combined,  unless 
they  were  civilized  nations  which  no  Ark  ever  built  by 
man  could  hold.  The  civilizations,  therefore,  of  the 
great  Eastern  monarchies — Egypt,  Chaldea,  Assyria, 
Babylonia,  India,  etc. — could  not  possibly  have  grown 
up  during  the  short  period  which  the  popular  chronology 

*  "  Origin  of  Nations,"  p.  32. 


104  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

assigns.  The  history  of  Egypt  alone  explodes  the  tra- 
ditional view.  We  must  also  give  up  the  popular  no- 
tion that  Ham  was  the  founder  of  this  nation.  These 
facts,  added  to  what  has  been  said  on  Biblical  dates 
and  the  geological  and  archaeological  evidence  of  man's 
extreme  antiquity,  ought  to  prepare  us  to  accept  Dr. 
Tylor's  opinion  that  "  the  first  appearance  of  man, 
though  comparatively  recent,  is  positively  so  remote 
that  an  estimate  between  twenty  and  a  hundred  thou- 
sand years  may  fairly  he  taken  as  a  minimum."  *  At 
any  rate,  two  facts  ought  to  be  clear: 

First.  The  age  of  the  human  race  is  not  settled  by 
the  Bible,  since  equally  devout  and  learned  chronolo- 
gers  from  the  same  data  draw  utterly  contradictory  esti- 
mates. This,  by  the  way,  should  silence  those  who 
accept  Usher's  view,  and  object  to  the  scientific  esti- 
mate because  anthropologists  differ  in  their  opinions. 

Secondly.  Whatever  objections  may  be  raised  to  the 
geological,  archaeological,  and  historical  evidences  of 
man's  extreme  antiquity,  yet  his  history  can  not  be 
compressed  within  a  period  of  four  to  six  thousand 
years ;  but  if  we  give  up  this  the  popular  view,  then 
we  may  safely  let  the  anthropologists  settle  the  question 
among  themselves. 

Closely  connected  with  what  has  been  said  on  the 
age  of  man  is  the  question  of  "  Preadamitism."  The 
first  question  which  meets  us  in  considering  this  sub- 
ject is  that  of  the  unity  of  the  human  race.  Did  it 
originate  from  a  single  pair,  male  and  female,  or  from 
many  individuals  and  centers  ?  It  must  suffice  to  quote 
in  answer  the  eminent  scientists,  Prof.  Huxley  and  Dr. 

*  "Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "Anthropology." 


THE  AGE  OF  TEE  HUMAN  RACE.  105 

E.  B.  Tylor.  Says  the  former :  "  I  am  one  of  those 
who  believe  that  at  present  there  is  no  evidence  what- 
ever for  saying  that  mankind  sprang  originally  from 
any  more  than  a  single  pair.  I  must  say  that  I  can  not 
see  any  good  ground  whatever,  or  even  any  tenable  sort 
of  evidence,  for  believing  that  there  is  more  than  one 
species  of  man.  Nevertheless,  as  you  know,  just  as 
there  are  numbers  of  varieties  in  animals,  so  there  are 
remarkable  varieties  of  men."  *  "  The  opinion,"  says 
Dr.  Tylor,  "  of  modern  zoologists,  whose  study  of  the 
species  and  breeds  of  animals  makes  them  the  best 
judges,  is  against  the  view  of  several  origins  of  man, 
for  two  principal  reasons  : 

"  First.  That  all  tribes  of  man,  from  the  blackest  to 
the  whitest,  the  most  savage  to  the  most  cultured,  have 
such  general  likeness  in  the  structure  of  their  bodies 
and  the  working  of  their  minds,  as  is  easiest  and  best 
accounted  for  by  their  being  descended  from  a  common 
ancestry,  however  distant. 

"  Second.  That  all  human  races,  notwithstanding 
their  form  and  color,  appear  capable  of  freely  intermar- 
rying and  forming  crossed  races  of  every  combination, 
such  as  the  millions  of  mulattoes  and  mestizoes  sprung  in 
the  New  World  from  a  mixture  of  Europeans,  Africans, 
and  native  Americans.  This  again  points  to  a  common 
ancestry  of  all  races  of  man.  We  may  accept  the  theory 
of  the  unity  of  mankind  as  best  agreeing  with  ordinary 
experience  and  scientific  research."  f 

An  apparent  objection  to  a  consideration  of  "  Pre- 
adamitism  "  may  be  urged  just  here.     "  Why,"  it  may 

*  Huxley's  "  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  113. 

f  Tyler's  "  Anthropology "  (International  Scientific  Series),  pp. 


106  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

be  asked,  "should  we  consider  the  question  whether 
there  were  Preadamites  when  we  do  not  know  when 
Adam  lived  %  "  In  answer,  Prof.  Alexander  Winchell, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  advocates  of  "  Preadamitism," 
would  say,  "  Though  we  may  not  know  the  exact  year 
of  'Adam's'  birth,  we  may  approximately  ascertain  it, 
and  this  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose."  In  a  letter  to 
the  author  on  this  subject  he  said :  "  The  Biblical  Adam 
lived,  say,  six  to  ten  thousand  years  ago  ;  men  who  lived 
before  Adam,  however  remote  they  were,  I  denominate 
Preadamites."  In  his  able  work  on  "Preadamites," 
Prof.  Winchell  maintains  that  the  Biblical  Adam  was 
not  the  first  man,  but  the  first  white  ma?i,  and  I  can  not 
do  better  than  give  a  brief  synopsis  of  his  views  on  this 
subject,  and  then  pass  judgment  upon  the  general  ques- 
tion. "  There  are  two  alternative  positions,"  says  our 
author,  "  which  may  be  assumed  in  reference  to  Adam  : 
1.  Adam  was  absolutely  the  first  human  being,  and  was 
in  every  respect  such  as  to  fill  the  requirements  of  that 
position.  2.  Adam  was  the  immediate  progenitor  of 
the  nations  which  figure  in  Biblical  history,  and  hence 
must  not  be  expected  to  answer  to  the  requirements  of 
the  primitive  ancestry  of  all  mankind."  *  In  attempt- 
ing to  refute  the  first  and  to  establish  the  second  prop- 
osition, Prof.  Winchell  adduces  "  Biblical,  linguistic, 
ethnological,  archaeological,  and  other  evidence,"  which 
certainly  deserves  most  respectful  and  careful  considera- 
tion ;  for,  if  it  do  not  conclusively  prove  his  theory,  it 
at  least  destroys  many  of  the  popular  notions  as  to  the 
origin  of  nations.  He  claims,  and  gives  strong  argu- 
ments in  support  of  his  claim,  that  the  scope  of  Biblical 

*  "  Preadamitism,"  p.  5. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RAGE.  I07 

Ethnography  was  limited.*  "  We  fix  our  attention,1' 
lie  says,  "  upon  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  observe  that 
its  position  is  nearly  central  between  the  limits  of  the 
Genesiacal  dispersion.  From  this  center  the  vision  of 
the  sacred  ethnologist  went  forth  and  discovered  the 
distribution  of  the  nations  of  his  day.  .  .  .  The  whole 
geographical  extent  of  the  Noachidse  (descendants  of 
Noah)  does  not  embrace  more  than  one  fifteenth  of  the 
territory  which  we  now  find  populated  by  man. 

"  Was  this  an  attempt  to  explain  the  origin  of  all 
the  nations  of  the  world  ? 

"  Does  this  genealogical  map  (Genesis  x)  imply  that 
the  regions  beyond  its  limits  were  then  occupied  by 
human  beings  ?  Does  it  mean  that  the  various  tribes 
and  nations  which  are  now  spread  over  the  earth  have 
arisen  from  the  wider  dispersion  of  the  Sons  of  Noah  ? 
Have  the  black  tribes  of  Africa  and  Australia  and  Me- 
lanesia, and  the  brown  nations  of  Asia  and  America  and 
Polynesia,  been  produced  from  the  posterity  of  Noah 
during  the  interval  which  separates  us  from  the  flood  ? 
To  all  these  questions  I  reply  in  the  negative ;  and  I 
shall  show  not  only  that  science  sustains  the  negative, 
but  that  the  Record  itself  both  implies  and  demands  it.f 
•  .  .  In  the  purview  of  Genesis,"  he  adds  further  on, 
"  all  the  world  is  the  region  over  which  the  Semitic 
people  were  dispersed  "  (which  he  considers  in  Chapter 
IY),  "  or,  in  the  widest  sense,  it  stretched  no  farther  than 
the  tribes  of  Gomer  on  the  north,  Madai  on  the  east, 
Seba  on  the  south,  and  the  posterity  of  Mizraim  on 
the  west.  With  such  a  purpose,  and  the  silence  which 
such  a  purpose  imposed,  the  later  Jews  undoubtedly 

*  "  Preadamitism,"  chapter  vii.  f  Ibid.,  pp.  89,  90. 

6 


108  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

came  to  believe  literally  that  all  the  races  of  men  had 
descended  from  Noah."  *  He  then  shows  "  the  invalid- 
ity of  this  belief."  In  showing  that  the  Bible  itself 
favors  "  Preaclamitism,"  he  considers  the  well-known  pas- 
sages about  Cain's  banishment  and  the  "  sons  of  God  " 
intermarrying  with  "  the  daughters  of  men."  "  When 
Cain"  (he  says),  "according  to  the  Biblical  account, 
was  convicted  before  Jehovah  of  the  murder  of  his 
brother,  he  was  banished  as  a  fugitive  from  the  land 
of  his  parents.  The  culprit,  reflecting  on  the  condition 
to  which  he  had  been  doomed,  exclaimed  :  '  My  pun- 
ishment is  greater  than  I  can  bear.  Every  one  that 
findeth  me  shall  slay  me.'  And  Jehovah  said  unto 
him,  'Therefore,  whosoever  slayeth  Cain,  vengeance 
shall  be  taken  on  him  sevenfold.' " 

And  Jehovah  set  a  mark  upon  Cain,  lest  any  one 
finding  him  should  kill  him.  And  Cain  departed  and 
dwelt  in  the  land  of  Nod,  on  the  east  of  Eden  (Gen.  iv, 
13-24).  It  is  next  mentioned,  in  the  continuation  of 
the  narrative,  that  Cain  had  married  a  wife,  and  a  son 
had  been  born,  whose  name  was  Khanok  (Enoch).  Cain 
is  next  reported  to  have  bibilt  a  city,  which  he  named 
after  his  son.  From  Enoch  descended  generations  rep- 
resented by  Irad,  Mehujael,  Methusael,  and  Lameck, 
who  married  two  wives.  Jabal,  the  son  of  one  wife, 
"  was  the  father  of  all  such  as  dwell  in  tents  and  of  such 
as  have  cattle.  Jubal,  his  brother,  was  the  father  of 
such  as  handle  the  harp  and  organ.  The  other  wife 
bore  Tubal-Cain,  an  instructor  of  every  artificer  in  brass 
and  iron." 

Following  out,  in  another  place  (Gen.  vi,  1-4),  the 


*  "  Preadamitism/'  p.  132. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE.  109 

line  of  the  Adamites  and  their  contemporary  annals, 
the  sacred  account  informs  us  that,  "  When  men  began 
to  multiply  on  the  face  of  the  earth  and  daughters  were 
born  unto  them,  the  sons  of  God  saw  the  daughters  of 
men  that  they  were  fair  and  took  them  wives  of  all 
which  they  chose,"  and  the  children  of  such  union  be- 
came mighty  men,  which  were  of  old  men  of  renown. 

" .Now,  I  think,"  continues  our  author,  "  that  a  nat- 
ural and  unsophisticated  interpretation  of  the  foregoing 
Biblical  statements  demonstrates  that  they  imply  the 
existence  of  Preadamites  : 

"  1.  Cain  recognizes  the  existence  of  some  people  in 
the  regions  remote  from  Eden,  from  whom  he  might 
apprehend  bodily  danger.  He  does  not  anticipate  this 
because  they  would  recognize  him  as  an  offender,  but 
because  he  would  be  a  foreigner  and  a  stranger. 

"  2.  Jehovah  recognizes  the  existence  of  a  foreign 
people  and  the  danger  to  which  Cain  would  be  exposed, 
and  provides  some  means  by  which  he  would  be  pro- 
tected from  the  effects  of  intertribal  or  inter-racial  an- 
tagonism. 

"  3.  Cain  went  toward  the  east — and  found  a  wife 
in  the  region  to  which  he  removed.  On  the  current 
pseudo-orthodox  intepretation  Cain  must  have  married 
his  sister  or  his  niece,  and  the  married  woman  must 
have  followed  him  into  banishment  for  some  unnamed 
offense.  I  say  '  followed  him,'  for  at  the  date  of  his 
banishment  Adam's  daughters  are  not  stated  to  have 
been  born.  .  .  .  His  wife  (it  is  concluded)  was  a  woman 
of  the  countrv  to  which  he  fled.  She  was  a  daughter 
of  the  Freadamite  race. 

"4.  Cain  built  a  city.  How  did  Cain  build  a  city 
with  only  a  wife  and  baby  ?     Or  did  the  population  of 


110  EVOLUTION-  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  city  await  a  natural  increase  of  a  family?  How 
many  citizens  is  it  probable  that  Cain  himself  furnished 
during  his  lifetime  ?  It  will  be  suggested  that  Enoch 
probably  assisted  him ;  but  where  did  Enoch  obtain  a 
wife  ?  Did  he  marry  one  of  his  aunts,  or  one  of  his 
possible  sisters?  Is  it  probable  that  an  eligible  aunt 
would  give  her  hand  to  the  son  of  her  brother's  mur- 
derer? I  would  reply  that  Enoch  intermarried  writh 
the  people  among  whom  his  father  had  settled. 

5.  "  '  And  Irad  begat  Mehujael.'  Who  was  Mehu- 
jael's  mother?  Was  she  bis  aunt,  a  sister  of  Irad ?  Or 
was  she  his  great-aunt,  a  sister  of  Enoch?  The  popular 
and  traditional  interpretation  supplies  another  muddle 
at  this  point." 

Prof.  Winchell,  also,  considers  "  the  sons  of  God " 
who  intermarried  with  "  the  daughters  of  men  " — i.  e., 
the  daughters  of  Adam — Preadamites.*  Of  course,  by 
supposing  that  miracles  were  constantly  wrought — that 
men  produced  offspring  by  the  thousands  in  those  days 
where  they  now  produce  tens — that  moral  obligations 
were  not  the  same  then  as  now — that  is  to  say,  by  mak- 
ing a  great  number  of  gratuitous  assumptions — wTe  can 
"  explain"  away  all  the  difficulties  which  Prof.  Winchell 
brings  forward ;  but,  if  we  are  asked  to  give  a  natural  and 
rational  and  literal  explanation  of  the  account  in  Genesis, 
we  must,  I  think,  accept  his  interpretation.  The  scien- 
tific proofs,  however,  which  Prof.  Winchell  adduces  in 
support  of  "  Preadamitism  "  are  much  more  cogent  than 
the  Biblical  evidence,  but  space  does  not  allow  me  to  give 
even  the  barest  outline  of  those  evidences,  and  I  have 
merely  cited  a  few  of  his  arguments,  in  the  hope  that 

*  "  Preadamitism,"  pp.  188-95. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE.  \\\ 

those  who  have  not  read  his  book  may  get  it.  My  own 
opinion  is  this :  If  we  would  read  the  first  few  chapters 
or  verses  of  Genesis  as  literal  history,  we  would  better 
adopt  the  theory  of  "  Preadamitism  "  ;  but  if  we  consid- 
er those  accounts  (as  I  do)  poems  on  creation,  etc.,  writ- 
ten by  some  religious  seer  or  poet,  in  Chaldea,  about 
2000  b.  c,  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  with  the  ques- 
tion of  "  Preadamitism."  "  Adam,"  according  to  this 
view,  would  be  considered  not  a  specific  name,  like 
"  Smith  "  or  "  Jones,"  but  simply  a  generic  term,  ap- 
plied by  the  poet  to  the  first  human  being ;  it  really 
means  simply  "  The  Man."  "  Eve  "  would  be  used  to 
denote  "  the  mother  of  all  living  "  (Gen.  iii,  20).  "  Cain  " 
would  stand  as  the  representative  or  "  father"  of  the 
agricultural  tribes.  "  Abel  "  would  be  the  progenitor 
of  the  pastoral  tribes  ;  the  conflict  between  the  two 
brothers  would  mean  the  invasion  of  "  Abel's  "  territory 
by  "  Cain,"  which  would  result  in  the  conversion  of  the 
latter  into  the  wandering  warrior,  the  builder  of  cities, 
etc.  "  Seth  "  would  be  the  "  Father  of  the  Faithful  "— 
the  first  preacher.  Some  such  view  as  this  seems  to  be 
suggested  by  what  is  said  of  ;;  Jabal,"  "Jubal,"  and 
"  Tubal-cain"  (Genesis  iv,  20-22) ;  and  it  seems  prefera- 
ble, considering  what  we  know  of  the  origin  of  Genesis, 
to  either  the  theory  of  "  Preadamitism  "  or  to  the  view 
of  Ewald  and  others,  who  see  in  Genesis  nothing  more 
than  legends,  like  those  of  heathen  nations,  about  the 
origin  of  the  world,  "  the  golden  age,"  etc.*  This  view 
obviates  all  the  difficulties  involved  in  any  attempt  to 
treat  Genesis  as  literal  history,  while  it  preserves  all  the 
great  moral  and  spiritual  truths  which  it  was  evidently 

*  Ewald,  "History  of  Israel  "  (English  translation),  i,  pp.  256-277. 


112  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

designed  to  teach.  No  one  would  read  Milton's  account 
of  creation  or  Bunyan's  "  Pilgrim's  Progress  "  as  literal 
history,  and  yet  he  might  learn  many  valuable  lessons 
from  these  writers.  Why,  then,  attempt  to  make  their 
great  Chaldean  prototypes  speak  in  the  prosaic  tongues 
of  the  historian  and  scientist  of  the  nineteenth  century 

A.  D.  ? 


CHAPTER  Y. 
man's  primitive  home  and  condition. 

"Distance  lends  enchantment,"  says  the  proverb, 
and  so  the  home  of  our  childhood  as  it  recedes  in  the 
past  is  surrounded  by  imagination  with  delights  it  never 
really  possessed.  May  not  this  inborn  tendency  of  the 
human  mind  have  given  rise  to  the  beautiful  stories  of 
a  "  golden  age,"  an  "  Eden,"  long  past,  whicli  we  find 
in  circulation  among  the  various  nations  of  the  earth  ? 
At  any  rate,  prosaic  science  and  history  unite  in  assert- 
ing that  the  "golden"  or  "Edenic"  age  of  man  is  not 
in  the  past  but  in  the  future. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  many,  mistaking  poetry 
for  prose,  or  allegory  for  fact,  have  sought  for  the  lo- 
cality of  "  Eden,"  not  only  in  every  part  of  the  world, 
but  even  outside  of  it ;  for  from  the  second  to  the  tenth 
century  not  a  few  of  the  Fathers,  and  after  them  others, 
"  held  that  it  was  the  same  as  the  Paradise  of  which  the 
New  Testament  speaks,  and  lay  in  secret  remoteness, 
half  on  earth  and  half  in  heaven."  *  "  These  fond 
dreamers,"  as  the  writer  quoted  calls  them,  came  nearer 
the  true  meaning  of  the  story  of  Eden  than  their  con- 
demnors ;  and,  since  there  have  been  so  many  even  fan- 

*  Geikie's  "  Hours  with  the  Bible,"  I,  chap.  viiL 


114  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

tastical  opinions  expressed  by  theologians  concerning 
the  locality  of  Eden,  it  would  be  far  more  modest  in 
them  not  to  ridicule,  as  some  of  them  have  done,  the  Evo- 
lutionist's "  imaginary  "  being  ("  the  connecting  link  ") 
in  an  imaginary  continent — Lemuria."  Since  both  The- 
ology and  Science  confessedly  can  not  point  to  the  exact 
abode  of  the  first  human  beings,  and  say,  "Behold, 
there  it  is  ! "  even  the  conjecture  of  a  learned  scientist 
is  worthy  of  consideration,  especially  since  certain  facts 
strongly  support  such  conjecture.  An  English  orni- 
thologist located  Lemuria,  the  primeval  abode  of  hu- 
manity, in  the  Indian  Ocean;  and  Prof.  Alexander 
Winch  ell  summarizes  the  facts  upon  which  this  conclu- 
sion rests  thus  :  1 .  "  We  have  the  direction  of  known 
movements  of  migration  over  the  earth.  These,  it  is 
true,  concern  chiefly  the  nations  of  the  Mediterranean 
race ;  though  to  a  considerable  extent,  also,  tribes  and 
peoples  of  the  Mongolian  and  even  the  African  stocks. 
Most  of  the  movements  of  the  white  and  brown  races 
have  been  from  central  and  southern  Asia.  2.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  animals  and  plants  (except  forest 
growths)  which  have  become  useful  to  man  are  known 
to  have  had  their  origin  in  the  Orient."  Hence,  we 
must  believe  that  such  plants  and  animals  have  been 
raised  in  the  Orient  longer  than  they  have  been  in  the 
Occident ;  in  other  words,  man  existed  in  those  parts 
before  he  did  in  these.  3.  "  Man,  as  an  animal,  is  un- 
clothed and  possessed  of  a  delicate  skin.  All  naked 
land-animals  are  natives  of  warm  countries ;  and  man 
similarly,  it  may  confidently  be  argued,  made  his  advent 
in  a  region  where  the  elements  did  not  oppose  his  com- 
ing. Primitively  lie  was  a  tropical  animal,  and  only 
wandered  into  colder  zones  as  he  had  learned  to  protect 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND    CONDITION.  115 

himself  by  artificial  coverings.  4.  The  mammalian 
fauna  (or  animal  kingdom)  of  the  Oriental  world  is 
highest  and  most  approximated  to  the  type  of  man  • 
and  hence  it  should  be  inferred  that  man  is  not  only  a 
tropical  but  an  Oriental  animal.  The  four  great  con- 
tinental regions,  as  has  been  often  remarked,  presents  a 
graduated  succession  in  the  rank  of  their  mammalian 
faunas.  Australia  is  lowest ;  South  America  is  next  in 
rank ;  North  America  stands  third ;  the  Orient  stands 
highest. 

"Now,  that  the  event  has  shown  man  to  have  been 
the  destined  culmination  of  organic  improvement,  it 
becomes  apparent  that  the  Orient  was  the  birthplace  of 
the  human  species."  After  discussing  the  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  existence  of  "  the  hypothetical  continent 
of  Lemuria,"  he  concludes :  "  When  we  examine  the 
soundings  of  the  Indian  Ocean,  we  find  that  the  gradu- 
ations in  depth  are  entirely  consonant  with  the  hypothe- 
sis of  a  primitive  but  now  wasted  continent.  Lemuria 
lies  in  the  region  indicated  by  the  facts  of  geographical 
distribution  of  Carnivores  (flesh-eating  animals)  and 
higher  Primates  as  the  quarter  of  the  world  reserved 
for  the  first  appearance  of  the  human  being.  It  is  now 
generally  admitted  that  Man's  birthplace  was  in  a  re- 
gion covered  at  present  by  the  waters  of  the  Indian 
Ocean."  * 

Having  thus  learned,  at  least  approximately,  where 
the  first  human  beings  lived,  we  will  now  consider  the 
vexed  question  of  their  original  condition,  physical,  in- 
tellectual, religious,  etc.  It  is  well  known  that  there 
are   two   radically  different  and  mutually  destructive 

*  "  Preadamitism,"  pp.  354-361. 


116  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

theories  on  this  subject :  one  holding  that  man's  primi- 
tive condition  was  a  state  of  " utter  barbarism";  the 
other,  that  it  was  a  highly  civilized  condition.  The 
late  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  states  the  latter  and  popular 
view  thus :  "  That  the  primitive  state  of  our  race  was 
not  one  of  barbarism  from  which  men  have  raised 
themselves  by  a  slow  process  of  improvement,  we  know, 
first,  from  the  authority  of  Scripture,  which  represents 
the  first  man  as  created  in  the  full  perfection  of  his 
nature ;  secondly,  the  traditions  of  all  nations  treat  of  a 
golden  age  from  which  men  have  fallen.  These  wide- 
spread traditions  can  not  be  rationally  accounted  for, 
except  on  the  assumption  that  the  Scriptural  account  of 
the  primitive  state  of  man  is  correct.  Thirdly :  The  evi- 
dence of  history  is  all  on  the  side  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bible.  Egypt  derived  its  civilization  from  the  East; 
Greece  from  Phoenicia  and  Egypt ;  Italy  from  Phoenicia 
and  Greece ;  the  rest  of  Europe  from  Italy.  Fourthly : 
The  oldest  records,  written  and  monumental,  give  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  nations  in  a  high  state  of  civ- 
ilization in  the  earliest  periods  of  human  history.  Fifth- 
ly :  Comparative  philology  has  established  the  fact  of 
the  intimate  relation  of  all  of  the  great  divisions  of  the 
human  race."  * 

In  reply  to  all  this,  it  may  be  said,  first,  that  "  the 
authority  of  Scripture  "  on  the  question  at  issue  is  the 
very  point  to  be  proved.  Of  course,  any  one  who  be- 
lieves that  Genesis  is  verbally  inspired  of  God  must 
accept  its  "  authority,"  but  we  have  already  seen  that 
this  dogma  rests  on  a  very  slender  foundation  ;  we  have 
no  more  reason  to  believe  that  our  Genesis  is  inspired 

*  Hodge's  "  Systematic  Theology,"  II,  p.  93. 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND   CONDITION.  117 

than  we  have  to  believe  George  Smith's  "  Chaldean  Gene- 
sis" is  ;  they  both  came  from  the  same  region,  and  were 
evidently  the  result  of  the  speculations  of  Chaldean  sages 
on  the  origin  of  the  world  and  man.  Secondly  :  Even 
if  we  grant  the  inspiration  and  consequent  " authority" 
of  Genesis,  its  meaning  is  by  no  means  so  clear  as  Dr. 
Hodge  would  have  us  believe.  For  instance :  he  says 
that  "  Man  was  originally  created  in  a  state  of  maturity 
and  perfection,"  and  "  this  perfection,  as  to  his  body, 
consisted  not  only  in  the  integrity  and  due  proportion 
of  all  its  parts,  but  also  in  the  perfect  adaptation  to  the 
nature  of  the  soul  with  which  it  was  united.  It  is  com- 
monly said  by  theologians  that  the  body  was  created 
immortal  and  impassable.  With  regard  to  its  immor- 
tality, it  is  certain  that  if  man  had  not  sinned  he  would 
not  have  died ;  but  whether  the  immortality  which 
would  then  have  been  the  destiny  of  the  body  would 
have  been  the  result  of  its  original  organization,  or 
whether  after  its  period  of  probation  it  would  have 
undergone  a  change  to  adapt  it  to  its  everlasting  condi- 
tion, is  a  matter  to  be  subsequently  considered."  Look- 
ing through  the  subsequent  pages,  I  find  that  the  doc- 
tor, in  treating  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and 
discussing  St.  Paul's  remark  that  "  flesh  and  blood  can 
not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (II  Cor.  xv,  50),  says, 
that  "  our  bodies  as  now  organized,  consisting  as  they 
do  of  flesh  and  blood,  are  not  adapted  to  our  future 
state  of  being,  and  that  everything  in  the  organization 
or  constitution  of  our  bodies  designed  to  meet  our  pres- 
ent necessities  will  close  with  the  life  that  now  is."  * 
Since  the  doctor,  of  course,  believes  that  man  originally 

*  "Systematic  Theology,"  II,  p.  92;  and  III,  p.  780. 


118  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

consisted  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  must  also  believe  that 
the  human  body  would  have  been  changed  to  adapt  it 
to  its  everlasting  condition  even  if  Adam  had  not  sinned ; 
but  he  is  not  (as  his  class  is  not)  very  clear  on  this  sub- 
ject. Hence,  we  see  that  both  the  inspiration  and  the 
interpretation  of  Genesis  remain  to  be  established ; 
and,  although  our  author  attempts  to  show  that  the  ac- 
count of  Man's  Fall  "  is  neither  an  allegory  nor  a  myth, 
but  a  true  history,"  *  yet  he  well  knows  that  some  of 
the  most  saintly  clergymen  in  the  Church — men  occu- 
pying the  highest  positions — consider  it  an  allegory. 
Thus,  Canon  Bow  tells  us  that  the  present  Bishop  of 
London  and  the  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  held 
this  view.f  And  hence  "  the  authority  of  the  Script- 
ures" on  this  subject  is  by  no  means  so  clear  as  "or- 
thodox" theologians. would  have  us  believe,  while  their 
views  are  refuted  by  the  most  indisputable  facts.  We 
have  seen  that  Dr.  Hodge  himself  admits  that  "man 
as  concerns  his  body  belongs  to  the  animal  kingdom."  % 
If  so,  Dr.  Hodge's  remark,  that  "it  is  certain  if  man 
had  not  sinned  he  would  not  have  died,"  is  false,  for 
it  is  absolutely  indubitable  that  for  ages  before  his  ap' 
pearance  those  animals  to  whose  kingdom  he  "  be' 
longs "  died  ;  and  there  is,  therefore,  no  shadow  of 
reason  to  suppose  that  man  would  have  proved  an  ex- 
ception if  he  had  not  sinned.  Hence  we  see  what  ab- 
surd contradictions  and  insuperable  difficulties  the  literal 
interpretation  of  Genesis  involves.  Thirdly :  Dr.  Hodge 
thinks  that  "  the  wide-spread  traditions  of  a  golden  age, 
from  which  men  have  fallen,  can  not  be  rationally  ac- 


*  "  Theology,"  II,  p.  123.  %  Supra,  p.  75. 

f  Canon  How's  "  Future  Retribution,"  p.  149. 


MAJST'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND    COJSTDITIOK  119 

counted  for  except  on  the  assumption  that  the  Script- 
ural account  of  primitive  man  is  correct."  Does  any 
one  believe  that  the  Golden  Age  of  Greece  ever  really 
existed  in  the  sense  here  defined  ?  JSTo  ;  and  it  is  most 
perilous  to  appeal  to  such  traditions  to  confirm  an  "  in- 
spired" record,  for  we  might  rationally  believe  that 
both  the  traditions  and  the  record  have  the  same  origin 
— an  origin  which  Science,  if  not  Theology,  can  and 
does  explain.  The  third  and  fourth  reasons  which  our 
author  assigns  for  believing  that  Genesis  is  literally  true 
are  essentially  the  same,  and  are  no  reasons  at  all,  for 
all  Science  recognizes  the  high  state  of  civilization  in 
Egypt  and  elsewhere,  but  Archaeology  shows  that  such 
civilization  was  not  primitive,  but  a  development  from 
a  loicer  state.  Finally,  "  Comparative  Philology,"  as 
we  shall  see,  so  far  from  confirming  the  popular  doc- 
trine, shows  that  language  itself  has  been  a  slow  devel- 
opment, and  so  refutes  the  common  view. 

We  are  now  free  to  consider  the  scientific  view  of 
primitive  man. 

"  However  imperfect  the  relics  of  prehistoric  men 
may  be,"  says  Prof.  Huxley,  "  the  evidence  which  they 
afford  clearly  tends  to  the  conclusion  that,  for  thousands 
of  years,  before  the  origin  of  the  oldest  known  civiliza- 
tions, men  were  savages  of  a  very  low  type.  They 
strove  with  their  enemies  and  their  competitors  ;  they 
preyed  upon  things  weaker  or  less  cunning  than  them- 
selves ;  they  were  born,  multiplied  without  stint,  and 
died  for  thousands  of  generations  alongside  the  mammoth, 
the  urus,  the  lion,  and  the  hyena,  whose  lives  were 
spent  in  the  same  way."  *     "  Human  life,"  says  Dr. 


*  a 


Popular  Science  Monthly,"  April,  1888,  p.  736. 


120   EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

Tylor,  "  may  be  roughly  classed  into  three  great  stages, 
savage,  barbaric,  civilized,  which  may  be  defined  as  fol- 
lows :  The  lowest  or  savage  state  is  that  in  which  man 
subsists  on  wild  plants  and  animals,  neither  tilling  the 
soil  nor  domesticating  creatures  for  his  food.  Savages 
may  dwell  in  tropical  forests  where  the  abundant  fruit 
and  game  may  allow  small  clans  to  live  in  one  spot  and 
may  find  a  living  all  the  year  round,  while  in  barer  and 
colder  regions  they  have  to  lead  a  wandering  life  in 
quest  of  the  wild  food  which  they  soon  exhaust  in  any 
place.  In  making  their  rude  implements,  the  materials 
used  by  savages  are  what  they  find  ready  to  hand,  such 
as  wood,  stone,  and  bone  ;  but  they  can  not  extract  metal 
from  the  ore,  and  therefore  belong  to  the  Stone  Age. 
Men  may  be  considered  to  have  risen  into  the  next  or 
harbaric  state  when  they  take  to  agriculture.  With  the 
certain  supply  of  food  which  can  be  stored  till  the  next 
harvest,  settled  village  and  town  life  is  established,  with 
immense  results  in  the  improvement  of  arts,  knowledge, 
manners,  and  government.  Pastoral  tribes  are  to  be 
reckoned  in  the  barbaric  stage,  for,  though  their  life  of 
shifting  camp  from  pasture  to  pasture  may  prevent  set- 
tled habitation  and  agriculture,  they  have  from  their 
herds  a  constant  supply  of  milk  and  meat.  Some  bar- 
baric nations  have  not  come  beyond  using  stone  imple- 
ments, but  most  have  risen  into  the  Metal  Age.  Lastly, 
civilized  life  may  be  taken  as  beginning  with  the  art 
of  writing,  which,  by  recording  history,  law,  knowl- 
edge, and  religion  for  the  service  of  ages  to  come,  binds 
together  the  past  and  the  future  in  an  unbroken  chain 
of  intellectual  and  moral  progress. 

"  This  classification  of  three  great  stages  of  culture  is 
practically  convenient  and  has  the  advantage  of  not  de- 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND   CONDITION.  121 

scribing  imaginary  states  of  society,  but  such  as  are  act- 
ually known  to  exist.  So  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  it 
seems  that  civilization  has  actually  grown  up  in  the 
world  through  these  three  stages,  so  that  to  look  at  a 
savage  of  the  Brazilian  forests,  a  barbarous  New-Zea- 
lander  or  Dahoman,  and  a  civilized  European,  may  be 
the  student's  best  guide  to  understanding  the  progress 
of  civilization  ;  only  he  must  be  cautioned  that  the  com- 
parison is  but  a  guide,  not  a  full  explanation."  *  These 
last  words  express  the  main  principle  which  anthropolo- 
gists adopt  in  their  consideration  of  the  rise  of  civiliza- 
tion— the  principle,  namely,  that  "  the  condition  of 
primitive  man  is  represented  by  the  condition  of  the  low- 
est race  of  modern  times."  u  I  know  of  no  method," 
says  Prof.  Win chell,  "  of  avoiding  this  conclusion."  f 
But  Dr.  C.  Geikie,  among  others,  decidedly  objects  to 
this  principle.  "  It  is  the  mode  of  this  school  (the  evo- 
lutionist)," says  Geikie,  "to  collect  all  the  most  de- 
graded and  savage  customs  and  usages  of  any  people, 
and  assume  that  they  are  traces  of  the  original  condi- 
tion of  the  race.  But  such  a  course  is  utterly  unphilo- 
sophical,  for  it  may  with  equal  force  be  urged  that 
they  are  illustrations  of  the  decay  of  a  primitive  civili- 
zation." Yet  he  accepts  this  very  principle  in  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  his  work.  "  It  is  hard,"  he  there  says, 
"  to  carry  ourselves  back  to  the  infancy  of  the  world 
and  think  aright  of  the  childhood  of  the  human  mind. 
.  .  .  The  simple  fancies  of  savage  tribes  at  the  present 
day  were  then,  in  fact,  the  sober  belief  of  all  races."  %   If 


*  Tylor's  "  Anthropology,"  pp.  23-25. 

f  "  Preadamites,"  p.  413. 

%  "  Hours  with  the  Bible,"  I,  pp.  16,  164, 


122  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

we  are  to  take  the  intellectual  status  of  "  savage  tribes 
at  the  present  day  "  as  representative  of  primitive  man's 
intellectual  condition,  it  is  hard  to  see  why  we  should 
refuse  to  accept  their  "  customs  and  usages  "  as  typical 
of  primeval  customs  and  usages,  for  these  are  only  out- 
ward and  visible  signs  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  condi- 
tion.    Hence  Prof.  Winchell's  conclusion  seems  valid. 

Applying  this  principle,  Mr.  Spencer  and  others  give 
us  a  more  or  less  complete  picture  of  primitive  man — 
physical,  emotional,  intellectual,  social,  and  religious. 
"  Physically"  says  Winchell,  u  the  men  of  the  Palaeo- 
lithic Epoch,  judging  from  the  few  skulls  and  skeletons 
discovered  in  Belgium  and  England,  were  of  rather 
short  stature."  * 

Spencer  also  thinks  that  the  primitive  man  was 
smaller  in  stature,  less  powerful,  more  callous  and  phleg- 
matic than  man  now  is.  f 

"  Socially  and  intellectually"  continues  Winchell, 
"  Palaeolithic  man,  in  the  regions  in  question  (Europe), 
seems  to  have  existed  in  a  most  primitive  condition. 
Dwelling  in  wild  caverns,  he  hunted  beasts  with  the 
rudest  stone  implements  and  clothed  himself  in  their 
skins.  We  find  no  evidence  of  the  use  of  fire,  though 
probably  known,  and  there  are  some  indications  that  he 
made  food  of  his  own  species.  Few  attempts  at  pottery 
have  been  discovered,  and  in  these  the  product  was 
rude,  hand-made,  and  simply  sun-dried."  This  asser- 
tion that  "  we  find  no  evidence  of  the  use  of  fire "  in 
the  Palaeolithic  Period,  is  contradicted  by  M.  Joly, 
among  others,  who  says :  "  It  can  not  be  denied  that 

*  "  Preadamites,"  p.  413. 

f  "  Principles  of  Sociology,"  i,  chap.  v. 


MAX'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND    CONDITION.  123 

the  use  of  this  element  was  known  to  the  earliest  qua- 
ternary men.  Numerous  hearths,  ashes,  cinders,  bones 
partly  or  entirely  carbonized,  fragments  of  rude  pottery 
blackened  by  the  smoke,  etc.,  have  been  found  in  caves 
belonging  to  the  age  of  the  cave-bear,  etc.  With  "fire 
prehistoric  men  burned  the  bodies  of  the  dead,"  etc.* 

In  the  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  his  "  Sociology  " 
Mr.  Spencer  considers  the  emotional  and  intellectual 
characteristics  of  primitive  men.  He  thinks  that  they 
were  impulsive,  improvident,  unsociable,  self-satisfied, 
caring  nothing  for  the  approbation  of  one  another,  and 
brutal  toward  women.  They  could  form  no  "  concep- 
tion of  general  facts,"  no  "  abstract  ideas,"  only  limited 
"  associations  of  ideas,"  no  notion  of  natural  law  or 
"  uniformity  of  Nature,"  and  possessed  simply  "  a  remi- 
niscent, not  a  constructive  imagination."  It  is  interest- 
ing to  contrast  this  view  of  primitive  man  with  that 
which  was  held  in  past  year?.  "As  to  knowledge,  our 
first  parent,"  says  Dr.  Geikie,  "  has  been  supposed  to 
have  excelled  all  men  since.  It  was  a  favorite  mode  of 
stating  this,  among  Christian  writers  before  the  Refor- 
mation, to  say  that  the  great  master  Aristotle  was  almost 
as  learned  as  Adam."  f  Dr.  Geikie  apparently  does  not 
believe  that  our  forefather  was  quite  so  learned  as  this, 
yet,  if  he  believed  the  creed  which  the  doctor,  following 
a  German  rabbi,  formulates  as  "  the  religious  belief  of 
our  first  parents,"  he  certainly  must  have  surpassed 
Aristotle  in  knowledge  and  faith. 

"^Esthetically?  Prof.  Winchell  thinks,  "  Paleolithic 


*  "Man  before  Metals,"  p.  19G;  and  Tylor's  "Early  History  of 
Man,"  chap.  ix. 

f  "  Hours  with  the  Bible,"  i,  p.  91. 


124  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

man  had  advanced  no  further  than  the  use  of  necklaces 
formed  of  natural  beads,  consisting  of  fossil  forami- 
nifera  from  the  chalk.  Some  Hints  from  the  river-drift 
of  St.  Acheul  present  rough  sketches  which,  it  has 
been  conjectured,  may  have  been  prompted  by  the  ar- 
tistic feeling.  Some  of  them  bear  remote  resemblances 
to  the  human  head  in  profile,  three-quarter  view,  and 
full  face ;  also  to  animals,  such  as  the  rhinoceros  and 
mammoth."  *  Did  primitive  man  possess  Language  f 
"  There  was  a  time,"  answers  Prof.  W.  D.  Whitney, 
"  when  all  existing  human  beings  were  as  destitute  of 
language  as  the  dog."f  But,  if  we  hold,  with  this 
writer,  that  language  is  "  everything  that  bodies  forth 
thought  and  makes  it  apprehensible,"  J  we  must  claim 
language  for  our  progenitors. 

Prof.  Whitney  agrees  with  Dr.  Tylor  that  "  there 
are  various  ways  in  which  men  can  communicate  with 
one  another.  They  can  make  gestures,  utter  cries,  speak 
words,  draw  pictures,  write  characters  or  letters"  It 
is  well  known  that  Tylor  believes  that  gestures  consti- 
tuted the  primitive  language  of  man,  or  at  least  that  it 
is  the  krwest  form  of  communication.  The  next  step 
consists  of  "  emotional  cries,"  as  "  ah  !  "  "  oh  !  "  "  ur-r-r," 
"  puh  !  "  etc.  Then  "  imitative  signs  "  follow,  such  as 
a  deaf  and  dumb  child's  imitating  the  act  of  washing 
the  face,  etc.  The  union  of  "  gesture-actions  and  gesture- 
sounds  forms  what  may  be  called  a  Natural  Language," 
which  language  "  really  exists."  This  natural  language 
"  is  half-way  between  the  communications  of  animals 


*  "  Preadaraites,"  p.  416. 

f  "Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Philology." 

%  "  Life  and  Growth  of  Language,"  p.  1. 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND   CONDITION.   125 

and  full  human  speech,"  and  how  the  latter  was  devel- 
oped Dr.  Tylor  shows  very  satisfactorily  in  his  admirable 
little  work  on  "Anthropology,"  and  in  his  "  Early  His- 
tory of  Mankind."  * 

M.  Joly  believes  that  primitive  man  "  had  at  least 
the  power  of  creating  language."  He  indorses  Sir  John 
Lubbock's  remark  that  "  Languages  are  human  in  the 
sense  that  they  are  the  work  of  man;  divine  in  the 
sense  that  man,  in  creating  them,  made  use  of  a  faculty 
with  which  Providence  had  endowed  him.  .  .  .  We  be- 
lieve that  languages  themselves  are  organisms  which 
have  their  life  in  embryo— their  infancy,  their  ripe  age, 
their  changes,  their  distant  and  repeated  migrations, 
their  decadence  and  death."  He  thinks  that  "  quater- 
nary man  expressed  his  feelings  by  cries  resembling 
interjections,  his  most  vivid  perception  by  onomato- 
poeia " — i.  e.,  imitative  sounds.  He  agrees  with  Whit- 
ney and  others  that  there  was  no  "  single  parent  lan- 
guage whence  all  others  are  derived."  f  "  The  original 
formation  of  language,"  says  Tylor,  "  did  not  take  place 
all  at  once,  but  was  a  gradual  process  extending  through 
ages,  and  not  absolutely  stopped  even  now,"  and  hence 
"  it  is  not  a  hopeful  task  to  search  for  primitive  lan- 
guages." It  is  hoped  that  the  reader  may  consult  the 
works  of  these  authors  on  this  intensely  interesting  and 
important  question ;  and  having,  I  trust,  made  it  clear 
that  primitive  man  possessed  a  very  low  form  of  lan- 


*  Compare  Dr.  Romanes's  admirable  work,  "  Mental  Evolution  in 
Man,"  chaps,  v  to  xv,  inclusive ;  Lubbock's  "  Origin  of  Civilization," 
chap,  ix ;  Max  Miiller's  "  Lectures  on  Language,"  etc. ;  Tylor's  "  An- 
thropology," chaps,  iv  to  vi;  and  "Early  History  of  Mankind," 
chaps,  ii  to  iv. 

t  "  Man  before  Metals,"  pp.  312-320. 


126  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

guage,  consisting,  probably,  of  gestures  and  emotional 
cries,  which  gradually  developed  into  full  human  speech, 
1  pass  to  a  consideration  of  the  most  important  question 
of  all  concerning  our  forefather,  viz.,  his  religious  con- 
dition. The  popular  view,  it  is  well  known,  holds  that 
he  was  created  absolutely  pure  and  perfect,  was  placed 
in  a  paradise,  where  he  was  tempted  in  some  mysterious 
way,  so  that  he  was  finally  induced  to  eat  the  "  forbid- 
den fruit,"  and  thus  partially  or  totally  corrupted  his 
nature,  and  was  consequently  banished  from  Eden  ;  the 
ground  and  all  other  creatures  were  cursed  for  his  sake, 
and  so  on. 

Dr.  Geikie,  as  already  stated,  formulates  a  creed  for 
Adam.     He  thinks  our  forefather  believed  : 

1.  "  That  God  alone  created  the  universe.  That 
He  existed  of  necessity  before  creation,  and  must  exist 
forever  without  change,  which  would  imply  that  He  is 
Immaterial  and  Eternal. 

2.  "  That  harmony  prevails  throughout  creation ; 
.  .  .  and  hence  the  great  Master  of  the  Whole  was 
One,  Only,  and  All-Wise. 

3.  "  That  this  Great  Being  made  the  world  from 
nothing ;  that  the  existence  of  all  creatures  depends 
absolutely  on  his  will ;  that  He  interrupts  the  course  of 
Nature,  that  is,  works  miracles,  when  he  thinks  fit ;  that 
He  is,  therefore,  Supreme  and  Almighty. 

4.  "  That  all  that  has  been  or  is  owes  its  first  source 
to  Him,  and  has  been  and  is  upheld  directly  by  Him — 
that  is,  He  is  Omnipresent. 

5.  "  That  He  created  man  as  to  this  soul  in  His  own 
image  ;  that  is,  spiritual,  free,  and  immortal.  Hence 
He  must  love  virtue  and  hate  vice,  or,  in  other  words, 
He  must  be  a  Holy  God. 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND   CONDITION.    127 

6.  "  That  the  lot  of  man  is  often  found  to  correspond 
with  his  conduct,  thus  showing  the  Righteousness  of 
God.  But,  the  fact  that  this  is  not  always  realized  here, 
is  an  absolute  proof  that  our  conduct  and  our  lot  will 
be  brought,  hereafter,  to  correspond.  Hence  Adam 
must  have  believed  in  a  Future  State. 

7.  "  That  God  watches  with  an  all-embracing  Provi- 
dence over  all  things ;  especially  over  man  at  large, 
and  each  individual  in  particular,  and  thus  must  be  the 
All-Good. 

8.  "-That  man  is  weak  and  wrought  upon  by  im- 
pulses from  within  and  temptations  from  without ;  that 
when  he  sins,  God  pardons  him,  on  seeing  and  repent- 
ing of  his  faults.  Thus  Adam  must  have  believed  in 
the  Tender  Pity  and  Mercy  of  the  Heavenly  Father. 

9.  "  That  God  demands,  not  on  His  own  account, 
but  for  the  good  of  man  himself,  our  homage  and  obe- 
dience to  His  sovereign  Will,  not  only  in  the  most 
secret  thoughts,  but  also  outwardly ;  and  that  He  has 
hence  given  us  Commands  and  Prohibitions — some  of 
abiding  force,  others  for  particular  circumstances  and 
times. 

10.  "  He  had  a  trust  in  the  mysterious  promise  of 
a  Future  Deliverer — the  '  Seed  of  the  Woman,'  who 
should  bruise  the  head  of  the  Serpent,  and  undo  the 
ruin  of  the  Fall." 

No  wonder,  then,  that  the  doctor  should  add,  "  It 
is  impossible,  indeed,  to  conjecture  how  much  may  have 
been  disclosed  to  one  who  stood  in  such  unique  rela- 
tions to  his  Maker,"  *  If  Adam  possessed  all  this 
knowledge  of  and  faith  in  God,  he  not  only  surpassed 

*  "  Hours  with  the  Bible,"  I,  pp.  93-95. 


128  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

an  Aristotle  and  a  Bishop  Butler,  bnt  his  knowledge  and 
faith  equaled  that  of  the  Deliverer  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  Science  takes  an 
absolutely  different  view  of  primitive  man's  religious 
condition,  and  all  its  facts  disprove  this  theory. 

Thus,  Sir  John  Lubbock  thinks  that  "  the  first  great 
stages  in  religious  thought  may  be  regarded  as — 

1.  "Atheism;  understanding  by  this  term  not  the 
denial  of  the  existence  of  a  Deity,  but  an  absence  of 
any  definite  ideas  on  the  subject. 

2.  "  Fetichism  /  the  stage  in  which  man  supposes 
he  can  force  the  deities  to  comply  with  his  desires. 

3.  "  Nature-worship,  or  Totemism  ;  in  which  mate- 
rial objects — trees,  lakes,  stones,  animals,  etc. — are  wor- 
shiped. 

4.  "Shamanism ;  in  which  the  superior  deities  are 
far  more  powerful  than  man,  and  of  a  different  nature. 
Their  places  of  abode  also  are  far  away,  and  accessible 
only  to  Shamans  (priests). 

5.  "  Idolatry,  or  Anthropomorphism  /  in  which  the 
gods  take  still  more  completely  the  nature  of  men, 
being,  however,  more  powerful.  They  are  still  amen- 
able to  persuasion  ;  they  are  a  part  of  Nature,  and  not 
creators.     They  are  represented  by  images  or  idols. 

6.  "  In  the  next  stage  the  Deity  is  regarded  as  the 
Author,  not  merely  a  part,  of  Nature.  He  becomes  for 
the  first  time  a  really  supernatural  being. 

7.  "  The  last  stage  is  that  in  which  morality  is  asso- 
ciated with  religion.'1  *  " 

Mr.  Spencer  treats  this  question  quite  fully  in  the 

*  "  Origin  of  Civilization,"  chapters  v-vii,  inclusive. 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND    CONDITION.  129 

first  volume  of  his  "  Sociology."  He  there  discusses  the 
primitive  man's  ideas  of  animate  and  inanimate  nature, 
of  sleep  and  dreams,  of  death  and  resurrection,  of  souls, 
ghosts,  spirits  and  demons,  of  another  life  and  super- 
natural agents,  of  inspiration,  divination,  sorcery,  etc., 
of  ancestor-worship,  animal  and  plant  worship,  and  Na- 
ture-worship.  He  thinks  that  primitive  man  got  the 
notion  of  "soul"  as  distinct  from  "body"  from  the 
dream,  during  which  he  supposed  his  "  other-self  "  wan- 
dered oif  from  his  body.  Having  got  this  idea  of  a 
double  self,  he  naturally  inferred  that  in  swoon,  death, 
etc.,  the  "  other-self"  had  merely  gone  away  on  a  longer 
journey  than  when  he  slept. 

This  simple  idea,  Mr.  Spencer  shows,  leads  to  all 
those  views  of  inspiration,  resurrection,  a  future  life, 
etc.,  which  prevail  among  savages,  and  to  ancestor- 
worship,  which  he  considers  "  the  root  of  every  relig- 
ion." No  synopsis  of  his  views  can  adequately  express 
them  and  so  the  reader  should  consult  the  work  itself.* 
"It  was  partly  through  political  circumstances,"  says 
Prof.  Fiske,  "  that  a  truly  theistic  idea  was  developed 
out  of  the  chaotic  and  fragmentary  ghost-theories  and 
Nature-worships  of  the  primeval  world.  This  Nature- 
worship  and  ancestor- worship  of  early  times  was  scarce- 
ly theism."  Man  originally  personified  all  physical 
phenomena,  and  in  all  this  personification  "  our  prehis- 
toric ancestors  were  greatly  assisted  by  that  theory  of 
ghosts  which  was  perhaps  the  earliest  speculative  effort 
of  the  human  mind.  .  .  .  The  mass  of  crude  inference 
which  makes  up  the  savage's  philosophy  of  nature  is 
largely  based  upon  the  hypothesis  that  every  man  has 

*  "  Principles  of  Sociology,"  i,  chapters  viii-xsv. 


130  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

another   self,  a  i  double,'  wraith,  or  ghost.      This    hy- 
pothesis  of   the  '  other-self,'  which  serves    to   account 
for   the  savage's  wanderings    during   sleep  in  strange 
lands  and  among  strange  people,  serves  also  to  account 
for  the  presence  in  his  dreams  of  parents,  comrades, 
or  enemies,  known  to  be  dead  and  buried.     The  other- 
self  of  the  dreamer  meets  and  converses  with  the  other- 
selves  of   his  dead   brethren,  joins  with  them  in   the 
hunt,  or  sits  down  with  them  to  the  wild  cannibal  ban- 
quet.    Thus  arises  the  belief  in  an  ever-present  world 
of  ghosts,  a  belief  which,  the  entire  experience  of  the  un- 
civilized man  goes  to  strengthen  and  confirm.     It  was  in 
accordance  with  this  primitive  theory  of  things  that  the 
earliest  form  of  religious  worship  was  developed.    In  all 
races  of  men,  so  far  as  can  be  determined,  this  was  the 
worship  of  ancestors."  *     It  thus  appears  that   Prof. 
Fiske  agrees  with  Mr.  Spencer.    "  It  can  not  be  denied  " 
says  M.  Joly,  "  that  God  has  always  revealed  Himself  to 
man   in   His  works,  but   the  conception  of   a   Divine 
Being,  of  a   Supreme  Cause,  was  of  slow  progressive 
development  in  primitive  man,  advancing  almost  imper- 
ceptibly by  an  instinctive  and  spontaneous  movement. 
Just  as  the  knowledge  of  our  Ego  ( Self  or  Soul )  and 
of  the  exterior  world  was  not  acquired  spontaneously, 
without  effort,  reflection,  or  experience,  so  the  idea  of 
the  existence  of  God,  at  first  embryonic,  so  to  speak, 
has  need,  in  order  to  attain  its  complete  development,  of 
slow  and  successive  efforts  of  the  human  mind  which 
has  conceived  it. 

"The  idea  of  God  is  at  first  individual,  infinitesi- 
mal, sometimes  strange  and  childish — it  grows  purer 

*  Fiske's  "  Idea  of  God,"  pp.  62-80,  inclusive. 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND    CONDITION.  131 

and  larger  with  the  growth  of  the  natural  intelligence 
and  acquired  instruction  of  him  who  conceives  it.  Then, 
from  being  individual,  it  becomes  collective ;  and  final- 
ly, passed  from  one  to  another,  it  progresses  gradually, 
until  it  attains  to  this  formula — '  Power,  Love,  and 
Wisdom,  united,  yet  divided,  compose  His  being.' 

"  Man,  then,  as  he  came  from  Nature's  hands,  was 
endowed  with  too  weak  an  understanding  to  enable  him 
to  attain  at  once  to  a  clear  and  precise  knowledge  of  the 
Divinity."  *  In  short,  he  was  endowed  with  the  capaci- 
ty of  learning  about  God,  which  capacity  was  gradually 
developed  by  the  various  means  already  noted,  until  it 
could  formulate  the  great  principles  of  Monotheism  and 
Christianity. 

Now,  the  main  reason  why  theologians  object  so 
strongly  to  this  theory  of  man's  primitive  condition,  is 
its  inconsistency  with  the  popular  doctrine  of  man's  fall 
and  depravity  in  Adam. 

It  is  claimed  that  man  was  created  perfectly  pure  in 
every  part  and  faculty  of  soul  and  body,  but  that,  by  an 
act  of  disobedience,  he  fell,  and  thereby  so  corrupted 
his  nature  that  the  mission  of  the  Saviour  was  rendered 
absolutely  necessary  to  his  salvation  from  sin  here  and 
hell  hereafter.  The  necessity  of  the  Atonement  or  of 
the  Saviour  is  thus  supposed  to  rest  on  the  fact  of 
Adam's  Fall,  and  it  is  now  my  purpose  to  refute  this 
popular  error.  In  doing  so  I  shall  quote  those  whose 
words  ought  to  carry  conviction  throughout  the  Church. 
In  the  seventh  chapter  of  his  able  work  on  "  Future 
Retribution."  Canon  Row,  of  England,  discusses  this 
subject  in  a  masterly  manner.     He  shows : 


Man  before  Metals,"  pp.  327-329. 


132   EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

1.  "That  from  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis  to  the 
last  of  Malachi  the  Fall  of  Man  is  not  once  mentioned  or 
even  referred  to  by  the  sacred  writers."  The  apparent 
exception  in  Job  (xxxi,  33)  "  disappears  in  the  alterna- 
tive maro-inal  rendering  of  the  Revised  Version." 

~  CD 

2.  "  The  Fall  of  Man  is  not  only  never  affirmed  by 
our  Lord  to  have  been  the  foundation  of  His  divine 
mission,  but  it  is  not  once  directly  referred  to  by  Him 
in  the  whole  course  of  his  teaching." 

John  viii,  42-4-i,  is  an  apparent  exception,  but,  even 
if  it  be  a  reference  to  the  Fall,  it  by  no  means  involves 
the  conclusion  that  without  it  Christ  would  never  have 
come  into  the  world — that  His  mission  to  man  would 
have  been  unnecessary. 

3.  "  No  reference  to  the  Fall  is  to  be  found  either  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
in  those  of  St.  Peter,  St.  James,  St.  John,  St.  Jude,  in 
nine  of  St.  PauFs  Epistles,  nor  even  in  the  Revelation, 
except  in  its  identification  of  the  old  Serpent  '  with  the 
Devil.' " 

"  It  will  doubtless  be  urged,"  says  the  Canon,  "  by 
those  that  hold  the  popular  theories  on  this  subject,  that 
all  these  writings  presuppose  it,  though  they  do  not 
directly  refer  to  it.     To  this  I  answer : 

"  First.  It  is  incredible,  if  they  presuppose  it  as  the 
foundation  on  which  their  teaching  rests,  that  all  direct, 
and  even  indirect,  reference  to  it  should  be  entirely 
wanting. 

"  Secondly,  In  investigating  a  subject  like  the  pres- 
ent wTe  have  nothing  to  do  with  presuppositions  and  as- 
sumptions, which  really  mean  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  reading  into  the  sacred  page,  for  the  purpose  of 
meeting  the  exigencies  of  our  own  theories,  what  is  not 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND   CONDITION.  133 

to  be  found  therein.  By  this  practice  it  is  easy  to  make 
Scripture  say  anything  which  the  commentator  or  the 
reader  wishes." 

4.  "  The  references  to  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis 
in  the  remainder  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  are  four  in  num- 
ber, viz.  (1)  I  Cor.,  xv,  21,  22 ;  (2)  II  Cor.,  xi,  3 ;  (3)  I 
Tim.,  ii,  12-15 ;  and  (4)  Kom.,  v,  12-21."  The  first 
three  passages  may  be  set  aside  at  once,  for  no  one 
would  be  so  foolish  as  to  maintain  that  they  prove  the 
popular  doctrine  of  Adam's  Fall.  I  mean,  while  they 
refer  to  Adam's  sin,  they  neither  prove  that  his  sin 
totally  corrupted  his  nature  nor  that  it  was  the  basis  of 
Christ's  mission  to  man  ;  this  is  the  point  at  issue.  In- 
deed, the  classic  passage  in  Romans  does  not  prove  this. 
It  is,  confessedly,  a  most  difficult  and  obscure  passage, 
but,  notwithstanding  all  obscurities,  "  its  general  pur- 
pose (as  Row  says)  is  sufficiently  clear."  The  writer 
intended  to  "  affirm  that  the  evil  which  has  resulted 
from  Adam's  (Man's)  transgression  has  not  only  been 
repaired  by  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  that  the  mis- 
chief which  has  been  occasioned  by  the  one  stands  to 
the  good  effected  by  the  other,  in  what  may  be  called  a 
ratio  of  greater  inequality — i.  e.,  that  the  work  of  Je- 
sus Christ  wrought  far  more  good  than  the  transgres- 
sion of  Adam  has  wrought  evilP 

Observe :  This  is  only  a  matter-of-fact  statement. 
]STot  one  word  is  said  about  Adam's  Fall  being  the 
sine  qua  non  of  Christ's  mission — that  without  which 
He  would  not  have  come  to  earth.  We  heartily  be- 
lieve what  St.  Paul  says.  We  believe  that  Adam,  who- 
ever he  was,  wherever  and  whenever  he  lived,  sinned — 
i.  e.,  freely  violated  Divine,  Moral  Law.  We  believe 
that  corrupt  habits  are  acquired  and  hereditarily  trans- 


134  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

mitted.  And  we  believe  that  Jesus,  by  what  he  taught, 
did,  and  suffered,  has  more  than  repaired  the  evil  which, 
resulted  from  the  First  Man's  transgression.  We  be- 
lieve that  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis,  like  Bunyan's 
"  Pilgrim's  Progress,"  contains  profound  moral  and 
spiritual  truths,  but  we  do  not  believe  that  the  popular 
view  of  man's  primitive  condition  is  either  scripturally, 
scientifically,  or  philosophically  correct.  The  proposi- 
tion that  a  being  created  perfectly  pure  and  in  direct 
communion  with  God,  the  Holy  One,  should  disobey 
Him,  is  utterly  irrational.  All  his  inclinations  would 
be  toward  the  good,  and  it  would  be  morally  impossi- 
ble for  him  to  do  evil.  I  have  read  many  attempted 
solutions  of  this  problem,  but  none  was  satisfactory. 
The  evolutionary  theory,  whatever  its  difficulties  may 
be,  does  not  involve  any  such  philosophical  absurdities  ; 
it  is,  at  least,  more  credible. 

"Evolutionists  say  that,  if  wrong-doing  is  easier 
than  right-doing,  it  is  because  wrong-doing  implies  a 
falling  bach  on  the  more  deeply  implanted  primitive 
(animal)  instincts,  and  right-doing  the  exercise  of  more 
recently  acquired  and  morally  higher  instincts."  * 

This  is  at  least  more  intelligible  than  the  theory 
which  holds  that  the  first  man  was  perfectly  pure,  and 
yet  did  such  evil  as  to  corrupt  his  own  nature  and  that 
of  all  his  descendants.  "  Reversion,"  as  the  writer  just 
quoted  remarks,  "  is  generally,  if  not  always,  an  easy 
process ;  the  difficult  thing  is  to  add  something  to  the 
ancestral  inheritance."  If  man  was  originally  only  a 
little  above  the  anthropoid  apes,  we  can  understand  why 
many  persons  are  still  brutal ;  their  development  is  im- 

*  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  December,  1887,  p.  269. 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND   CONDITION.  135 

perfect ;  their  moral  and  spiritual  faculties  are  dull  and 
weak.  "  But,  if  so,"  the  u  orthodox  "  theologian  would 
reply,  u  then  education,  not  atonement — a  professor  of 
moral  and  physical  science,  not  a  redeemer — is  what  is 
needed."  When  I  treat  of  "  Evolution  and  the  Atone- 
ment "  I  shall  discuss  this  point  more  fully  ;  meanwhile 
I  may  say  :  First,  the  word  "  atonement "  is  used  in  so 
many  senses  that  it  is  necessary  to  define  it  very  care- 
fully before  one  can  speak  of  its  necessity,  etc.  But, 
secondly,  even  if  we  hold  the  popular  view  on  this  sub- 
ject, viz.,  that  Christ's  death  was  t\\Q  penalty  of  man's 
sin — that  he  was  the  victim  chosen  instead  of  the  sin- 
ner to  bear  his  punishment — we  may  yet  adopt  the 
evolutionist's  theory  of  man's  primitive  condition.  Let 
us  grant  that  man  was  originally  a  savage  scarcely  raised 
above  the  level  of  the  anthropoid  ape,  who  very  slowly 
acquired  power  to  conquer  and  subdue  his  animal  pas- 
sions. The  moment  he  acquired  such  power  he  became 
a  responsible  being,  and  although  his  will  was  not  ab- 
solutely free  then,  as,  indeed,  it  is  not  now*  yet  he 
might  have  resisted  the  evil,  and,  as  he  did  not  do  so, 
he  ought  to  suffer  the  consequences — the  punishment. 
Hence,  if  a  Saviour  is  needed  to  bear  such  punishment 
at  all,  he  is  so  needed  on  the  evolutionary  view.  In  a 
letter  to  the  author  on  this  subject  the  Bishop  of  Car- 
lisle, England  (Dr.  Goodwin),  says :  "  I  am  not  sure 
that  any  particular  scientific  theory  of  the  origin  of 
man  makes  the  doctrine  of  our  relation  to  God  through 
the  Incarnation  (for  that  I  conceive  is  ultimately  what 
is  meant  by  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement)  more  diffi- 
cult than  it  would  be  if  we  put  such  scientific  theory 

*  See  "  Present  Day  Tracts  " — Tract  sxx,  by  Canon  Row. 


136   EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

altogether  out  of  the  question.  The  great  fact  which 
we  have  to  deal  with  is  the  rebellion  of  the  will  of  man 
against  the  will  of  God;  this,  I  take  it,  express  it  as 
you  will,  is  the  basis  of  sin  ;  this  is  what  separates  the 
condition  of  man  in  relation  to  God  from  that  of  any 
other  creature.  The  book  of  Genesis  represents  the 
beginning  of  this  rebellion  in  a  very  simple,  striking, 
and  picturesque  way.  But  suppose  the  book  of  Gene- 
sis had  been  lost,  and  we  had  begun  (so  to  speak)  with 
the  New  Testament ;  suppose  (which  is  quite  conceiv- 
able) that  the  Incarnation  had  taken  place  without  all 
the  preface  which  we  find  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
Christ  had  declared  that  he  came  to  '  make  an  end  of 
sin,'  such  as  the  experience  of  the  world  showed  to 
exist,  would  not  this  revelation  have  fitted  in  equally 
well  with  any  scientific  knowledge  as  to  the  origin  and 
descent  of  man  ?  For  my  part,  I  wonder  how  man  ever 
came  into  existance  at  all ;  Darwin  (even  granting  all 
he  tells  us  in  the  '  Descent  of  Man '  to  be  true)  seems 
to  me  only  to  magnify  the  marvel  of  his  existence.  If 
Julius  Csesar  and  Alfred  the  Great  and  Washington 
were  legitimate  descendants  of  minute  Ascidians,  no 
words  can  express  the  miracle  of  the  transformation ; 
<  but  there  man  is ' ;  the  Scripture  says  that  he  is  there 
because  God  willed  him  to  be.  Mr.  Darwin  says  he 
was  evolved  from  something  which  existed  previously ; 
grant  that  this  second  view  is  true,  it  does  not  change 
the  fact  that,  when  man  came  to  be  what  he  is,  he  dif- 
fered from  other  creatures  in  having  an  independent  will 
and  that  sometimes  he  has  misused  his  independence. 
Therefore,  if  the  highest  life  of  man  consists  in  union 
with  God,  man's  highest  destiny  calls  for  at-one-ment 
with  God ;  it  calls  for  reconciliation,  for  the  realization 


MAN'S  PRIMITIVE  HOME  AND   CONDITION.   137 

of  what  Holy  Scripture  calls  '  an  adoption '  as  sons." 
This  ought  to  satisfy  the  most  ardent  traditionalist  that 
Evolution,  by  exploding  the  popular  doctrine  of  man's 
fall,  does  not  destroy  the  need  of  the  Saviour. 

Instead  of  looking  for  the  basis  of  the  Atonement  in 
the  third  chapter  of  Genesis,  we  should  look  for  it  in  the 
great  book  of  experience,  and  by  basing  its  necessity  on 
the  fact  of  sin  rather  than  on  a  document,  we  make  it 
coextensive  with  mankind. 

I  have  thus  stated  as  clearly  and  as  candidly  as  I 
could  what  after  a  careful  and  unbiased  consideration 
of  the  facts  of  the  case  seems  to  me  to  be  the  true  view 
of  man's  origin,  antiquity,  and  primitive  condition.  I 
need  hardly  add  that  I  have  not  aimed  either  at  origi- 
nality or  completeness,  but  have  merely  tried  to  suggest 
lines  of  thought  which  every  student  of  these  great 
problems  may  follow  out  for  himself.  This  is  the 
foundation;  in  the  next  part  I  shall  rear  the  super- 
structure, or  rather  the  framework,  of  a  system  of  the- 
ology which  alone  seems  to  be  tenable  in  the  light  of 
modern  research. 


PART    II. 
INTRODUCTION. 

THE   DOCUMENTS. 

In  considering  the  origin  of  Christianity,  the  first 
question  to  be  answered  is,  When  and  by  whom  were 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  written  ? 

The  day  has  long  since  passed  when  thinking  per- 
sons will  rest  satisfied  with  the  assurance,  come  whence 
it  may,  that  the  Bible  says  thus  and  so,  and,  being  an  in- 
spired book,  its  ipse  dixit  is  conclusive. 

Whatever  else  the  Bible  may  be  proved  to  be,  it  is  a 
book,  and  like  all  other  books  it  must  submit  to  a  criti- 
cal examination.  Its  contents  may  have  proceeded 
from  minds  which  were  divinely  illuminated ;  but  we 
must  know  first  of  all  who  were  its  authors,  when  they 
lived,  and  what  reason  we  have  for  believing  that  they 
were  specially  gifted  on  religions  subjects.  Such  ques- 
tions are  not  suggested  by  a  diabolical  spirit,  but  by  the 
most  intensely  religious  and  earnest  spirit.  Religion  is 
too  important  a  subject  to  rest  in  a  state  of  uncertainty 
or  on  untested  authority.  Bishop  Butler  says  a  man  is 
responsible  for  the  use  of  his  tender  standing.  Our 
reason  and  conscience  are  given  us  of  God  to  use,  and 
if  we  fail  to  use  them,  or  if  we  misuse  them,  we  shall 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  139 

certainly  be  held  responsible  for  the  same.  Such  a  re- 
sponsibility is  an  awful  fact,  but  it  is  a  fact,  and  we 
may  as  well  realize  it. 

We  dare  not  ignore  it,  and,  if  we  recognize  it,  we 
must  question  every  professed  revelation  on  every  sub- 
ject, and  must  satisfy  our  reason  and  conscience  that  it 
is  true.  "We  have  no  other  faculty  than  reason  to 
judge  of  revelation  itself"  (Butler). 

It  is  not  necessary  to  my  purpose  to  consider  the 
origin  of  all  the  books  of  the  JSTew  Testament,  and  so  I 
shall  confine  my  attention  to  ten  of  the  Epistles  ascribed 
to  St.  Paul,  the  book  of  Revelation,  the  Four  Gospels, 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, from  which  we  may  gather  all  the  facts  which  it 
is  absolutely  necessary  we  should  know  in  order  to  un- 
derstand the  rise  of  Christianity. 

In  considering  the  authorship  and  authenticity  of  a 
book  there  are  two  sources  of  evidence  available,  name- 
ly :  first,  the  references  to  or  nse  of  said  book  by  con- 
temporary and  immediately  subsequent  writers;  and, 
second,  the  contents  of  the  book  itself,  which  should  fit 
in  with  what  we  know  from  authentic  history  of  the 
times  in  which  it  was  professedly  originated.  It  is 
plain,  therefore,  that  the  student  of  Christian  origins 
must  know  something  about  the  early  Christian  writers 
who  were  the  associates  and  immediate  successors  of  the 
Apostles  and  traditional  authors  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament. 

Fortunately,  the  English  reader  is  enabled,  through 
the  services  of  "  The  Christian  Literature  Publishing 
Company,"  of  New  York,  to  familiarize  himself,  with 
comparatively  little  effort,  with  the  writings  of  the 
"  Christian  Fathers,"  as  the  early  writers  of  the  Church 


140  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

are  called.  The  first  volume  of  "The  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers,"  published  by  the  aforementioned  company, 
will  give  him  the  facts  at  first  hand  which  he  should 
know  in  order  to  understand  the  time  and  circumstances 
that  saw  the  birth  of  Christianity.  If  he  have  not  the 
books  in  question  and  do  not  care  to  buy  them,  he 
should  borrow  them  from  some  clergyman  who  has 
them,  for  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  he  go  to  the 
root  of  this  matter  for  himself.  So  many  learned  and 
apparently  equally  honest  writers  have  reached  diamet- 
rically opposite  conclusions  on  some  of  the  questions 
at  issue  that  there  is  only  one  course  open  to  the  stu- 
dent— he  must  use  their  works  mainly  as  guides  to  the 
discovery  of  the  facts  of  early  Christian  literature  and 
history,  and  from  those  facts  draw  his  own  conclusions. 
But  I  would  here  protest,  once  for  all,  against  the  in- 
ferences which  certain  "  orthodox "  writers  of  our  day 
draw  from  the  differences  of  opinion  which  prevail 
among  the  (so-called)  "advanced  critics."  Indeed,  the 
common  answer  given  to  the  arguments  of  these  critics 
is  that  they  are  mutually  destructive.  But  there  is 
hardly  a  half  truth  in  this  assertion.  The  critics  do, 
indeed,  differ  among  themselves,  as  "  orthodox "  theo- 
logians differ,  on  certain  points.  But  they  are  agreed 
on  the  general  point  at  issue.  Thus  they  may  differ  as 
to  the  particular  date  or  mode  of  origin  of  a  certain 
book,  but  they  are  all  quite  agreed  that  the  Gospels,  for 
instance,  were  of  so  gradual  and  slow  formation  as  to 
allow  the  insertion  of  unhistorical  matter.  This  is  the 
great  point  at  issue,  and  it  should  ever  be  kept  clear- 
ly in  mind.  I  am  sure  that  he  who  will  study  the 
writings  of  the  "advanced  critics"  with  an  unbiased 
mind,   and   examine   for  himself   the   early  Christian 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  141 

authors  to  whom  they  refer,  will  feel  after  such  study- 
that,  however  great  may  be  their  differences  on  minor 
points,  yet  they  are  not  sufficient  to  destroy  the  com- 
mon conclusion  of  the  critics,  namely,  that  the  New 
Testament  literature  was  of  so  gradual  a  formation,  it 
originated  so  long  after  the  events  referred  to  are  said 
to  have  occurred,  and  in  such  a  manner,  that  unhistori- 
cal  matter  may  very  readily  have  been  inserted.  The 
principal  Christian  fathers  whose  writings  the  reader 
ought  to  consult  are  : 

1.  Clement  of  Rome,  the  third  bishop  of  that 
Church,  who  lived  and  wrote  between  a.  d.  30  and  100. 
His  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  so  highly  esteemed 
in  the  early  Church  as  to  be  publicly  read  in  the  con- 
gregations along  with  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  etc. 

2.  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  who  lived  and  wrote 
between  65  and  155  a.  d.  His  Epistle  to  the  Philippic 
ans,  and  an  Encyclical  Epistle  issued  by  the  church  of 
Smyrna  on  the  occasion  of  Polycarp's  martyrdom,  have 
reached  us,  and  throw  some  light  on  the  subject  in  hand. 

3.  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch  in  Syria,  has  left  us 
seven  short  epistles,  which  are  generally  considered 
genuine  and  authentic,  and  were  issued  about  the  year 
100  or  105  a.  d.* 

4.  Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  a  city  in  the  prov- 
ince of  Phrygia,  in  Asia  Minor,  lived  and  wrote  between 
the  years  70  and  155  a.  d.  "  He  was  a  hearer  of  the 
Apostle  John,  and  was  on  terms  of  intimate  intercourse 
with  many  who  had  known  the  Lord  and  His  Apostles. 
From  these  he  gathered  the  floating  traditions  in  regard 

*  The  author  of  "  Supernatural  Religion,"  Part  II,  chap,  ii,  among 
others,  denies  the  Ignatian  authorship  of  these  epistles,  but  on  insuf- 
ficient grounds. 


142  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

to  the  sayings  of  our  Lord,  and  wove  them  into  a  pro- 
duction divided  into  five  books,"  the  greater  portion 
of  which  has  been  lost,  but  a  few  invaluable  fragments 
have  reached  us. 

5.  Justin,  commonly  called  "the  Martyr,"  was  a 
Gentile  philosopher,  but  was  born  in  Samaria,  near 
Jacob's  Well.  He  was  well  educated  ;  had  traveled  ex- 
tensively ;  and,  finally,  after  trying  the  philosophy  of 
Socrates  and  Plato,  "he  climbed  toward  Christ,"  and 
became  the  first  Christian  apologist,  or  defender  of  the 
faith.  He  flourished  between  the  years  110  and  165 
a.  d.  His  first  "Apology  "  was  addressed  to  the  Roman 
Emperor,  Antoninus  Pius,  who  reigned  for  twenty- 
three  years  from  the  year  138  a.  d.  The  second  "Apol- 
ogy" was  addressed  to  the  Roman  Senate.  The  only 
other  work  of  Justin  which  we  need  notice  is  his  "Dia- 
logue with  Tnjpho,"  a  Jew,  which  "is  the  first  elabo- 
rate exposition  of  the  reasons  for  regarding  Christ  as 
the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  first  sys- 
tematic attempt  to  exhibit  the  false  position  of  the  Jews 
in  regard  to  Christianity."  These  three  works  are  "  un- 
questionably genuine." 

6.  Irenseus,  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Lyons,  in  Gaul 
(France),  lived  and  wrote  between  120  and  202  a.  d. 
His  celebrated  work,  "Against  Heresies,"  in  five  books, 
"  is  one  of  the  most  precious  remains  of  early  Christian 
antiquity.  It  is  devoted,  on  the  one  hand,  to  an  ac- 
count and  refutation  of  those  multiform  Gnostic  here- 
sies which  prevailed  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second 
century;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  an  exposition  and 
defense  of  the  Catholic  faith."  * 


*  "  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  vol.  i,  Introductory  Notices. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  143 

Other  writers  may  be  referred  to  in  the  following 
pages,  but  it  will  then  be  time  enough  to  give  their 
dates  and  location,  and  the  six  writers  mentioned  are  the 
most  important  witnesses,  since  they  lived  contempora- 
neously with  or  immediately  after  the  Apostles.  The 
reference  to  "  Gnostic  heresies  "  suggests  a  most  impor- 
tant question,  viz.,  the  nature  of  Gnosticism  and  its  in- 
fluence on  early  Christian  thought,  to  which  we  must 
devote  a  few  pages.  "  Gnosticism  "  is  derived  from  the 
Greek  word  gnosis  (yvwais),  which  means  "  knowledge? 
and  was  applied  to  the  tenets  of  an  early  sect,  who 
claimed  to  have  superior  knowledge  in  matters  relig- 
ious. The  word  "  Agnosticism,"  so  familiar  to  modern 
thought,  is  the  exact  opposite  of  "Gnosticism,"  and 
means  "without  knowledge?  and  Prof.  Huxley,  the 
originator  of  the  word,  tells  us  that  "  it  came  into  my 
(his)  head  as  suggestively  antithetic  to  the  'gnostic'  of 
Church  history,  who  professed  to  know  so  much  about 
the  very  things  of  which  I  (he)  was  ignorant."  * 

The  sources  of  Gnosticism  are  to  be  found  in  various 
forms  of  religious  and  philosophic  speculation  antece- 
dent to  Christianity,  especially  in  the  teachings  of  a 
celebrated  Jewish  philosopher,  Philo  by  name,  who 
flourished  at  Alexandria,  in  Egypt,  between  the  years 
b.  c.  20  and  a.  d.  50,  and,  again,  in  the  influences  flow- 
ing from  the  old  Persian  religion  and  the  Buddhistic 
faiths  of  India  and  the  East. 

"  The  fundamental  questions  with  which  Gnosticism 
concerned  itself  are  the  same  which  in  all'  ages  have 
agitated  inquiry  and  baffled  speculation,  viz.,  the  origin 
of  life  and  the  origin  of  evil — how  life  sprung  from  the 

*  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  April,  1888,  pp.  763-765. 


144  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Infinite  Source  —how  a  word  so  imperfect  as  this  could 
proceed  from  a  supremely  perfect  God.  The  Oriental 
notion  of  matter  as  utterly  corrupt  is  found  to  pervade 
all  Gnostical  systems,  and  to  give  so  far  a  common 
character  to  their  speculations.  It  may  be  said  to  be 
the  ground  principle  of  Gnosticism. 

"  Setting  out  from  this  principle,  all  the  Gnostics 
agree  in  regarding  this  world  as  not  proceeding  imme- 
diately from  the  Supreme  Being.  A  vast  gulf  is  sup- 
posed to  separate  them.  In  the  general  mode  in  which 
they  conceive  this  gulf  to  be  occupied  they  all  agree. 
The  Supreme  Being  is  regarded  as  wholly  inconceivable 
and  indescribable— as  the  Unfathomable  Abyss— the 
Unnameable.  From  this  transcendent  source  Existence 
springs  by  emanation,  in  a  series  of  spiritual  powers. 
It  is  only  through  these  several  powers  or  energies  that 
the  Infinite  passes  into  life  and  activity,  and  becomes 
capable  of  representation. 

"  To  this  higher  spiritual  world  is  given  the  name 
Pleroma  (irXripcofjua  =  Fullness),  and  the  divine  powers 
composing  it,  in  their  ever-expanding  processes  from 
the  Highest,  are  called  iEons. 

"  So  far  a  common  mode  of  representation  character- 
izes all  Gnostical  systems.  All  unite  in  this  doctrine  of 
a  higher  emanation-world." 

But  the  Gnostics  had  many  and  various  theories 
concerning  the  passage  from  the  higher  spiritual  world 
to  the  lower  material  one,  into  which  we  need  not  enter. 
Christ  is  recognized  by  them  "  as  a  higher  iEon,  pro- 
ceeding from  the  kingdom  of  light  for  the  redemption 
of  this  lower  kingdom  of  darkness."  Gnosticism 
reached  its  full  and  systematic  development  during  the 
first  quarter  of  the  second  century,  and  then  its  in- 


TEE  DOCUMENTS.  145 

fluences  issued  from  two  main  centers,  viz.,  Antioch  in 
Syria  and  Alexandria  in  Egypt.  It  was  "  in  the  air  " 
long  before,  and  we  shall  soon  see  how  it  affected  (or  is 
supposed  to  have  affected)  Christian  thought,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  JSTew  Testament.* 

Philo,  the  Jewish  philosopher  of  Alexandria,  who 
lived  between  the  years  b.  c.  20  and  a.  d.  50,  has  been 
mentioned,  and  we  must  glance  at  his  teaching,  since  it 
is  also  believed  to  have  affected  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament,  especially  the  "  Gospel  according  to  John  " 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  According  to  Philo, 
God  is  "a  Being  better  than  all  goodness,  holier  than 
all  holiness,  more  beautiful  than  all  beauty,"  who  "  is 
absolutely  separated  from  this  corrupt  world,  and  of 
whom  man  may  know  that  He  is,  but  not  what  He  is." 
But  if  God  is  such  a  Being,  so  pure,  so  holy,  so  lofty, 
that  He  could  not  come  in  contact  with  the  corrupt, 
material  world,  how  was  the  world  created  ?  To  bridge 
over  the  vast  abyss  between  the  two,  Philo  brings  for- 
ward his  doctrine  of  the  "  Word  "  (\6yos  =  Logos),  who 
was  the  instrument  of  all  creation,  the  first-born,  the 
Son  of  God,  who  ruled  over  a  world  of  subordinate 
"  words  "  or  "  geons." 

The  word  Logos  (Word)  has  two  meanings,  Reason 
and  Speech.  Philo  uses  it  sometimes  in  one  and  some- 
times in  the  other  of  these  senses,  but  predominately  in 
the  former.  When  he  wishes  to  distinguish  between 
them,  he  calls  Speech  "  uttered  Reason,"  and  Reason 
"  immanent  Speech."  The  Reason,  he  says,  is  like  a 
fountain,  and  utterance  flows  from  it.  The  seat  of 
reason  is  the  ruling  and  spiritual  sphere  of  human  na- 


*  n 


Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Gnosticism." 


146  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

ture ;  the  seat  of  speech  is  the  vocal  organs.  Hence 
"  the  Divine  Logos  "  is  the  manifestation  of  God  ;  and 
"  the  Sacred  Logos "  is  used  for  the  Scriptures ;  and 
the  "  True  Logos  "  is  the  rule  of  life,  namely,  "  to  live  in 
accordance  with  the  highest  nature."  *  Remembering 
that  such  teaching  as  this  was  circulating  in  the  regions 
where  "  John's  Gospel "  was  produced,  we  can  readily 
understand  the  peculiar  form  of  the  following  passage : 
"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in 
the  beginning  with  God.  All  things  were  made  by 
him  ;  and  without  him  was  not  anything  made  that  wTas 
made.  .  .  .  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  us  (and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the 
only  begotten  of  the  Father),  full  of  grace  and  truth  " 
(John  i,  1-15). 

The  person  who  wrote  those  lines  was  influenced 
by  Philo's  philosophy;  at  least  so  say  many  learned 
critics,  and  we  shall  consider  this  opinion  further 
on. 

The  apostles  and  early  disciples  were  primarily 
preachers,  and  only  secondarily  writers,  and  so  they  did 
not,  immediately  after  our  Lord's  death,  sit  down  and 
write  his  biography,  but  went  forth  into  all  the  world 
to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  and  hence  the 
books  of  the  JSTew  Testament  were  called  forth  by  cir- 
cumstances. 

The  first  writings  thus  produced  were  not  the  "  Gos- 
pels," as  an  uninformed  person  might   imagine  from 


*Farrar's  "Early  Days  of  Christianity,"  vol.  i,  pp.  265-279; 
Keim's  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  i,  pp.  276-297 ;  "  Encyclopaedia  Britan- 
nica,"  article  "  Philo." 


TEE  DOCUMENTS.  147 

their  position  in  the  New  Testament,  but  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul.  There  are  four  epistles,  viz.,  those  to  the 
Corinthians,  Romans,  and  Galatians,  which  even  the 
most  radical  skeptics  acknowledge  to  be  the  works  of 
the  Apostle.  The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was 
written  by  St.  Paul  at  Ephesus  about  the  year  57  a.  d. 
The  following  are  the  most  ancient  witnesses  to  its 
genuineness,  and  they  are  quite  sufficient.  Glement  of 
Rome  says  :  "  Take  up  the  Epistle  of  the  blessed  Apos- 
tle Paul ;  what  did  he  write  to  you  at  the  time  when 
the  Gospel  first  began  to  be  preached  ?  Truly  under 
the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  he  wrote  to  you  concerning 
himself  and  Cephas  and  Apollos,  because  even  then 
parties  had  been  formed  among  you."  *  Ignatius,  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (chapter  ii)  quotes  the 
tenth  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  I  Corinthians,  say- 
ing, "  It  is  befitting  that  you  should  in  every  way 
glorify  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  glorified  you,  that  by  a 
unanimous  obedience  ye  may  be  perfectly  joined  to- 
gether in  the  same  mind,  and  in  the  same  judgment, 
and  may  all  speak  the  same  thing  concerning  the  same 
thing."  This  is  only  one  of  many  of  his  quotations 
from  this  Epistle  of  St.  Paul. 

Polycarp  also  asks,  "  Do  we  not  know  that  the 
Saints  shall  judge  the  world,  as  Paul  teaches  ? "  Again, 
"Neither  fornicators  nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of 
themselves  with  mankind,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  etc.  (I  Cor.,  vi,  2,  9,  10).  f 

Justin  Martyr  writes,  "  There  shall  be  schisms  and 


*  Clement's  "  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,"  chap,  xlvii,  "  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers,"  vol.  i. 

f  Polycarp's  "Epistle  to  the  Philippians,"  chaps,  xi  and  v. 


148  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

heresies"  (I  Corinthians,  xi,  19).*  Irenseus  says, 
"Paul  was  not  ignorant  of  it  (the  destruction  of  the 
world)  when  he  declared,  '  For  the  figure  of  this  world 
passeth  away.'  "  And  again,  "  Paul  declares,  <  We  know 
in  part,  and  we  prophesy  in  part,  but  wThen  that  is 
perfect  is  come,  the  things  which  are  in  part  shall  be 
done  away"  (I  Corinthians,  vii,  31 ;  xiii,  9,  10).  "  But 
this  also,"  he  adds  more  plainly,  "  Paul  has  declared  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  when  he  says,  '  Brethren, 
I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  how  that  all 
our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  were  all  baptized 
with  Moses  in  the  sea,' "  etc.  (I  Corinthians,  x,  1,  etc.). 
And  in  many  other  passages  this  writer  quotes  copious- 
ly from  this  epistle.f  The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians was  written  by  St.  Paul  soon  after  he  wrote 
the  first,  and  is  likewise  so  well  attested  that  no  one 
doubts  its  genuineness. 

Thus,  among  the  many  quotations  from  this  epistle 
in  the  writings  of  Irenseus,  we  find  this :  "  Paul  said 
plainly  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  '  In 
whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of 
men  that  believe  not '  "  (II  Corinthians,  iv,  4).  % 

The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  written  from  Cor- 
inth about  the  year  58  a.  d.,  and  is  quoted  by  Clem- 
ent of  Rome,  who  says :  "  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  gave 
his  blood  for  us  by  the  will  of  God  ;  His  flesh  for  our 
flesh,  and  His  soul  for  our  soul."*  Although  this  ref- 
erence is  doubtful,  it  is  considered  by  many  skeptical 

*  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho,"  chap.  xxxv. 
f  "Against  Heresies." 

%  "  Against  Heresies,"  Book  III,  chap,  vii ;  Book  IV,  chaps,  xxviii, 
xii,  iii,  ix,  etc. 

#  "  Epistle  to  Corinthians,"  chap.  xlix. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  149 

critics  as  being  based  on  Galatians,  i,  4.  Ignatius  says, 
"  Which  bishop,  I  know,  obtained  the  ministry  for  the 
public,  not  of  himself,  nor  by  men,  nor  out  of  vainglory, 
but  by  the  love  of  God  the  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  etc.  (Galatians,  i,  1).  This  allusion  is  also  un- 
certain. Irenseus  is  the  first  writer  who  expressly  re- 
fers the  epistle  to  St.  Paul :  "  Paul  .  .  .  says,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  '  Then  fourteen  years  after  I 
went  up  again  to  Jerusalem  with  Barnabas,'  "  etc.  (Gala- 
tians ii,  1,  2).*  And  many  of  his  contemporaries  as- 
cribe it  to  St.  Paul. 

"  The  early  heretics  were  also  acquainted  with  the 
epistle,  ascribing  it  to  its  true  author.  It  was  in  Mar- 
cion's  Canon,  though  he  is  said  to  have  omitted  an  im- 
portant passage  and  interpolated  two  words  in  another. 
Both  charges  are  false,  though  Tertullian  makes  them."  f 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  written  from  Cor- 
inth after  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  in  the  same  year, 
and  its  genuineness  is  unquestioned.  Clement,  Poly- 
carp,  and  others  quote  it  or  refer  to  it,  and  Irena?us 
says:  "Paul,  when  writing  to  the  Komans,  has  ex- 
plained this  very  point :  <  Paul,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,  predestinated  unto  the  Gospel  of  God,'  etc.  And 
again,  writing  to  the  Komans  about  Israel,  he  says, 
<  Whose  are  the  fathers,'  etc."  %  But  since  such  radical 
skeptics  as  Baur,  Davidson  and  others  admit  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  four  epistles  it  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  it.# 

*  "  Against  Heresies,"  Book  III,  chap,  xiii,  §  3. 

f  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  "Introduction  to  New  Testament,"  vol. 
i,  p.  86. 

%  "  Against  Heresies,"  Book  III.  chap,  xvi,  §  3. 

*  Davidson,  ut  supra;  Baur,  "  Church  History,"  vol.  i,  pp.  56,  61, 
66,  etc. 


150  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

In  addition  to  these  four  epistles,  there  are  six 
others  which  many  of  the  advanced  critics  attribute  to 
St.  Paul,  viz.,  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  to 
Philemon,  to  the  Colossians,  to  the  Philippians,  and 
at  least  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  With  re- 
gard to  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  and  Philip- 
pians,  Penan,  the  well-known  French  skeptic,  says : 
"  The  difficulties  which  certain  ones  of  modern  times 
have  raised  against  them  consist  in  those  slight  suspi- 
cions which  it  is  the  duty  of  criticism  to  express  freely, 
but  not  to  dwell  upon  when  more  cogent  reasons  op- 
pose. These  three  Epistles  possess  a  character  of  au- 
thenticity which  overcomes  every  other  consideration."* 
To  this  conclusion  Dr.  Davidson  assents.  "  Too  much 
importance,"  he  says,  "  is  attached  by  Baur  to  uniform- 
ity of  ideas  and  expressions  as  evidence  of  Pauline  au- 
thorship. He  takes  four  epistles  unquestionably  authen- 
tic and  forming  a  group  by  themselves  as  the  standard 
of  measurement  for  groups  of  later  and  earlier  origin. 
By  this  means  little  room  is  left  for  growth  in  the  Apos- 
tle's mind  ;  nor  is  there  latitude  for  the  influence  of  the 
wide  variety  of  circumstances  through  which  he  passed, 
of  the  persevering  opponents  he  had  to  encounter,  or 
of  the  local  diversities  of  peoples."  The  First  Epis- 
tle to  the  Thessalonians  was  written  from  Corinth  about 
the  year  53 ;  the  second  was  written  about  69.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians  was  written  from  Pome,  "  near 
the  end  of  the  Roman  captivity"  of  Paul — i.  e.,  a.  d. 
69  or  70.f 


*Renan's"St.  Paul,"  p.  11. 

f  Davidson's  "  Introduction  to  New  Testament,"   i,   pp.   4-16, 
156-176,  and  336-351. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  151 

Davidson  answers  all  of  Baur's  objections  to  these 
three  epistles,  and  also  gives  quotations  of,  or  refer- 
ences to,  them  from  the  Fathers  which  prove  their  genu- 
ineness. 

Both  Penan  and  Davidson  accept  the  Epistle  to 
Philemon  as  the  work  of  St.  Paul,  and  it  was  probably 
written  about  the  year  60  or  61.*  The  Epistles  to  the 
Colossians  and  the  Ephesians  are  more  doubtful.  The 
external  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Pauline  authorship  of 
Colossians  is  as  good  as  that  supporting  Galatians,  etc., 
but  Davidson  rejects  it  on  internal  grounds.  He  thinks 
it  is  tainted  "  with  gnostic  influence,"  and,  as  "  the 
stage  is  not  an  advanced  one,"  he  places  the  date  "  about 
120  a.  n.  in  Asia  Minor,  perhaps  in  Phrygia."  f  "  Noth- 
ing in  all  this,  however,"  says  Penan,  "  is  decisive.  If 
the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  the  work  of  St.  Paul  (as 
we  believe  it  to  be),  it  was  written  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  Apostle's  life,  at  a  period  in  which  his  biography  is 
very  obscure."  ;£ 

Davidson  rejects  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Ephesians,  although  he  says,  "  Antiquity  is 
agreed  in  assigning  the  epistle  to  Paul."  He  thinks  it, 
like  Colossians,  "originated  in  the  Gnostic  period  be- 
tween 130  and  140  a.  d."  #  But  Ren  an  thinks  that, 
although  Paul  himself  did  not  write  or  dictate  this  let- 
ter, yet  "  it  was  composed  while  he  was  yet  alive,  under 
his  eyes,  in  his  name  " — or,  at  least,  this  "  is  not  to  be 
declared  improbable.  Paul,  a  prisoner  at  Pome,  might 
commisson  Tychicus  to  go  and  visit  the  churches  of 

*  Davidson's  "Introduction,"  i,  pp.  149-155. 
f  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  170-194. 

%  Renan's  "St.  Paul"  pp.  11-13. 

#  Davidson's  "  Introduction,"  ii.  pp.  195-230. 


152  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Asia,  giving  him  several  letters,  the  Epistle  to  the  Co 
lossians,  the  note  to  Philemon,  and  the  Epistle,  now  lost, 
to  the  Laodiceans. 

"  He  might  also  give  him  copies  of  a  sort  of  circular 
letter,  with  the  name  of  the  church  left  blank,  which 
would  be  the  so-called  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  In 
going  to  Ephesus,  Tychicus  might  show  this  unsealed 
letter  to  the  Ephesians,  and  we  may  suppose  the  latter 
took  one  copy  of  it,  or  transcribed  its  contents."  * 

Thus,  then,  it  appears  that  according  to  all  the  ablest 
and  most  radical  critics  we  have  at  least  four  epistles 
which  are  the  real  works  of  St.  Paul,  while  six  others  are 
accepted  as  the  Apostle's  productions  by  many  of  the 
advanced  critics,  and  even  those  who  reject  them  as  St. 
Paul's  works  admit  that  they  were  written  in  or  near 
his  time,  and  contain  the  real  apostolic  tradition,  and 
this  is  all-sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  in  this  connection  the 
other  epistles,  save  that  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  un- 
doubtedly not  the  work  of  St.  Paul.  Both  external 
and  internal  evidences  prove  this.  "The  writings  of 
the  Apostolic  fathers  are  silent  on  this  point,"  and  "  the 
epistle  was  not  considered  apostolic  till  the  fourth  cent- 
ury, when  it  first  obtained  a  canonical  position  and  was 
assigned  to  Paul."  The  internal  evidence  against  the 
Pauline  authorship  is  thus  summarized  by  Dr.  David- 
son: 

1.  It  has  no  title.  "  The  name  of  the  writer  does 
not  appear,  contrary  to  Paul's  method."  2.  "  The 
manner  in  which  the  Old  Testament  is  quoted  differs 
from  the  Pauline."     3.  "  The  writer  betrays  an  imper- 


*  Renan's  "  St.  Paul,"  p.  18. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  153 

feet  knowledge  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  temple — a 
thing  that  could  not  be  asserted  of  Paul,  who  lived  in 
Jerusalem  for  a  considerable  time."  4.  According  to 
ii,  3,  the  writer  was  not  an  Apostle ;  but  had  received 
the  gospel  from  early  witnesses."  5.  "  The  herme- 
neutical  principles  of  the  epistle  differ  from  Paul's.  In 
allegorizing  the  Old  Testament,  the  author  goes  much 
further  than  the  Apostle."  6.  "  The  doctrinal  system 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  though  based  upon  Paul- 
inism,  is  worked  out  in  a  different  way,  and  assumes 
another  form."  7.  "  The  phraseology  and  style  of  the 
epistle  are  different  from  Paul's."  He  thinks,  with 
Archdeacon  Farrar,  that  Apollos  was  the  author,  and 
"  the  letter  was  probably  written  a.  d.  66.''  * 

I  have  included  this  epistle  in  my  enumeration  and 
discussion  of  the  New  Testament  books,  because  it  gives 
the  correct  view  of  the  Atonement,  as  we  shall  see,  and, 
although  not  the  work  of  St.  Paul,  it  is  a  production  of 
the  Apostolic  age,  and  is  just  as  truly  inspired  as  it 
would  be  if  St.  Paul  had  written  it. 

The  Book  of  Revelation  is  almost  universally  ascribed 
to  St.  John  the  Apostle.  Baur  says  :  "  Not  long  after 
the  Apostle  Paul  left  the  sphere  of  his  labors  at  Ephesus, 
we  meet  the  Apostle  John  at  the  same  place.  The 
Apocalypse  (Revelation)  was  written,  according  to  its 
own  statement,  at  or  near  Ephesus,"  and  by  St.  John.f 

Dr.  Davidson  gives  us  a  good  summary  of  the  exter- 
nal evidence  in  proof  of  the  Johannine  authorship  of 
this  book,  the  most  satisfactory  of  which  is  Justin  Mar- 

*  Davidson's  "  Introduction,"  ii,  pp.  177-239;    Farrar's  "Early 
Days  of  Christianity,"  i,  pp.  247-480 — especially  chap.  xvii. 
f  Baur's  "  Church  History,"  i,  pp.  86,  153. 


154  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

tyr's  testimony  to  it.  "  There  was  a  certain  man  with 
us,"  he  says,  "  whose  name  was  John,  one  of  the  Apos- 
tles of  Christ,  who  prophesied  by  a  Revelation  that  was 
made  to  him,  that  those  who  believed  in  our  Christ 
would  dwell  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem"  (Rev.,  xx, 
4,  5).*  "It  is  an  undoubted  fact,"  adds  Davidson, 
"  that  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  several 
distinguished  fathers  connected  with  the  church  in  Asia 
Minor,  who  had  excellent  opportunities  of  knowing  the 
prevailing  traditions  there,  received  the  work  as  an 
authentic  document  of  John's." 

Bat  he  goes  on  to  ask — and  here  I  quote  him  at 
length — "  Does  internal  evidence  coincide  with  the  ex- 
ternal as  regards  authorship  ?  In  four  places  John  calls 
himself  the  author  (i,  1,  4,  9 ;  xxii,  8).  He  speaks  of 
himself  like  Daniel,  '  I,  John.'  He  treats  of  the  Apos- 
tolic age,  when  Jewish  ideas  prevailed  and  the  expecta- 
tion of  Messiah  was  fresh  in  the  general  mind.  A  book 
bearing  his  name,  and  composed  thirty  years  before  his 
death,  would  have  called  forth  a  contradiction  (if  it  had 
not  been  his),  and  such  contradiction  would  have  reached 
us  from  the  circle  of  his  disciples  through  Irenaeus." 
The  contents  of  the  book  agree  with  the  assumption  that 
it  proceeds  from  an  apostolic  man  : 

1.  Its  Eschatology,  or  "doctrine  of  the  last  things," 
is  apostolic.  "The  idea  of  their  Lord's  speedy  coming 
(to  judgment)  had  made  a  deep  impression  on  the  minds 
of  the  Apostles."  And  this  idea  is  present  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, although  "  John  puts  a  wide  interval  between  the 
manifestation  of  Messiah  and  the  end  of  the  world — the 
space  of  a  thousand  years." 

*  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho,''  chap,  lxxxi. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  155 

2.  In  like  manner  the  Christology  (doctrine  concern- 
ing Christ)  of  the  Apocalypse  "  contains  apostolic  ele- 
ments." 

3.  "  The  conception  of  Antichrist  also  harmonizes 
with  apostolic  times.  The  name  of  this  power  does  not 
appear  in  the  book,  but  the  idea  is  found  in  a  concrete 
form." 

4.  "  The  Pnewnatology  (doctrine  concerning  spirits) 
of  Revelation  agrees  with  that  of  the  apostolic  writings. 
The  power  of  the  devil  in  relation  to  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  is  presented  under  the  same  aspect  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse and  Paul's  Epistles.  ...  As  far  as  the  individuality 
of  John  is  reflected  in  the  New  Testament  and  tradition, 
it  is  in  harmony  with  the  contents  of  the  Apocalypse. 
The  sons  of  Zebedee  were  impetuous  spirits,  whose  feel- 
ings led  them  easily  into  excess  or  revenge.  They 
wished  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  to  consume  the  in- 
habitants of  a  Samaritan  village,  and  begged  the  chief 
places  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  John  forbade  one 
who  presumed  to  cast  out  devils  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
(Luke,  ix,  54 ;  Matthew,  xx,  20-24  ;  Mark,  ix,  38).  He 
was  a  Boanerges,  or  '  Son  of  Thunder,'  with  a  decided 
individuality  and  an  ardent  disposition  requiring  checks 
(Mark,  iii). 

5.  "  As  far  as  he  appears  in  the  Acts  and  Pauline 
Epistles^  his  mind  is  somewhat  narrow,  unemancipated 
from  national  prejudice."  He  observed  Easter  on  the 
day  of  the  Jewish  Passover,  and  tradition  says  that 
"  he  was  a  priest  and  wore  the  sacerdotal  plate."  This 
agrees  with  the  priestly  particulars  in  the  seven  epistles 
(Revelation,  ii,  3).  "  After  removing  to  Asia  Minor,  he 
is  described  as  indignantly  contending  against  false 
teachers,  both  Jewish  and  Gentile.    Irenseus  states  from 


156  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Polycarp  that  the  Apostle,  going  into  a  bath  on  one 
occasion,  discovered  (the  heretic)  Cerinthus  there,  and 
leaping  ont  of  it,  hastened  away,  saying  he  was  afraid  of 
the  building  falling  upon  him  and  crushing  him  with 
the  heretic*  These  traits  are  faithfully  reflected  in  the 
book  before  us,  which  betrays  an  impassioned  spirit  full 
of  rage  against  the  despisers  of  God  and  his  Anointed, 
with  images  of  dragons,  murder,  blood  and  fire,  vials  of 
wrath.  The  souls  of  martyrs  invoke  vengeance  on  their 
persecutors ;  and  all  heaven  is  summoned  to  rejoice  over 
the  downfall  of  Babylon."  Both  Baur  and  Davidson 
think  that  St.  John  belonged  to  the  Jewish,  party  that 
opposed  St.  Paul  so  strongly  (Galatians,  ii,  and  Acts 
xv),  and  verse  second  of  chapter  second  (Revelation), 
which  speaks  of  "  them  which  say  they  are  apostles  and 
are  not,"  is  supposed  to  refer  to  St.  Paul.  Various  other 
arguments  are  advanced  by  these  authors  to  prove  that 
St.  John  was  the  author  of  the  Revelation,  and  wrote  it 
"  between  "  June,  a.  d.  68,  "  when  Nero  (Roman  emper- 
or) died,  and  January,  a.  d.  69,  when  Galba  was  mur- 
dered," and  these  arguments  seem  conclusive. f 

We  come  now  to  the  most  difficult  and  the  most  im- 
portant question  of  this  section,  namely,  the  origin  of 
the  Gospels. 

The  first  fact  which  must  be  clearly  and  fully  grasped 
is  that  our  Gospels  are  only  four  of  many  accounts  of 
our  LoroVs  life  which  were  produced,  hut  most  of  which 
are  now  lost.  The  author  of  the  third  Gospel  assures 
us  that  "many"  had  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in  or- 

*  "  Against  Heresies,"  Book  III,  chap,  iii,  §  4. 

f  Davidson,  "  Introduction,"  i,  pp.  240-301.  Of.  Farrar's  "  Early 
Days  of  Christianity,"  vol.  ii,  Book  V,  pp.  103-335;  "Supernatural 
Religion,"  vol.  ii,  pp.  388-409. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  157 

der  a  declaration  of  those  things  which  were  believed 
among  the  disciples,  and  so  it  seemed  good  to  him  also 
to  write  what  had  been  delivered  unto  him  from  the 
beginning  by  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word 
(Luke,  i,  1-3).  Of  these  "  many  "  narratives  we  have 
at  least  fragments  preserved  in  the  writings  of  the  early 
fathers,  the  most  notable  of  which  is  that  called  the 
"  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews."  "  The  Gospel  of  the  He- 
brews," says  Dr.  Keim,  "  the  existence  of  which  at  the 
end  of  the  second  century  is  attested,  and  traces  of  which 
are  to  be  found  at  least  as  far  back  as  the  middle  of  that 
century,  runs  remarkably  parallel  to  our  first  Gospel. 
Coming  a  hundred  times  in  contact  with  the  latter,  writ- 
ten in  Hebrew,  tenaciously  adhered  to  by  the  believing 
and  tradition-observing  Jews  as  the  true  and  only  Gos- 
pel, rather  as  the  genuine  Gospel  of  the  Apostle  Mat- 
thew, it  has  from  the  time  of  Jerome  (fourth  century) 
downward  to  Lessing,  Baur,  and  Hilgenfeld,  often  been 
regarded  as,  or  conjectured  to  be,  the  true  original 
Matthew.  On  the  other  hand,  and  especially  by  mod- 
ern criticism,  this  view  has  been  combated  and  the  work 
has  been  shown  to  be  a  later  production  derived  from 
our  existing  Matthew."  * 

"  Several  fragments  of  a  '  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians ' 
have  been  preserved,  chiefly  by  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
and  in  the  second  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Home ;  \  it 
must,  therefore,  have  existed  tolerably  early,  at  any  rate 
as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The 
Gospel  of  the  Egyptians  is  the  work  of  a  gloomy,  self- 

*  Keim's  "  Jesus  of  Nazara."  vol.  i,  pp.  40-44. 
t  "  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  392,  etc. ;  Clement's  "  Stro- 
mata,"  iii,  chap.  ix. 


158  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

mortifying  ascetic,  and  the  early  Church  rejected  it  on 
account  of  its  asceticism  and  its  obscure  mysteries."  * 
Then  there  are  the  Apocryphal  or  spurious  Gospels,f 
which  are  merely  corrupt  and  perverted  versions  of 
our  Gospels.  The  most  important  of  these  are :  "  The 
Gospel  of  James,"  the  "  Gospel  of  Thomas,"  and  the 
" Acts  of  Pilate"  which  date  back  to  the  second  cent- 
ury. "  The  Gospel  of  James  "  narrates  the  two  miracu- 
lous births,  that  of  Mary  herself,  and  that  of  Jesus,  in  a 
medley  of  beautiful  and  revolting  fancies.^ 

"Thomas"  unfolds  the  miraculous  world  of  the 
childhood  and  boyhood  of  Jesus,  who,  in  this  book,  alto- 
gether ceases  to  be  human.  #  "  The  Acts  of  Pilate,"  fol- 
lowing our  Gospels,  John  inclusive,  narrates  the  condem- 
nation of  the  Innocent  One,  for  whom  Pilate  and  the 
Roman  ensigns,  the  sick  who  had  been  healed,  friends 
and  foes,  all  plead ;  then  come  the  resurrection  and  the 
ascension,  the  reality  of  which  occurrence  is  attested  by 
witnesses  of  every  kind,  even  by  Annas  and  Caiaphas.  |] 

The  Gospel  of  the  pseudo-Matthew,  which  appeared 
in  the  time  of  Jerome,  and  "  the  '  History  of  Joseph 
the  Carpenter,'  bring  us  down  much  later — at  the 
earliest,  in  the  fifth  century.  "  A 

Now,  when  we  consider  that  the  age  immediately 
succeeding  that  of  the  Apostles— i.  e.,  the  second  century 
—saw  the  birth  of  so  much  spurious  literature ;  when 
we  remember,  further,  that  even  in  the  apostolic  age, 
according  to  Luke,  "  many  "  accounts  of  the  Master's 
life  were  written,  we  are  at  once  forced  to  the  signifi- 

*  Keim,  ut  supra.  f  "  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  vol.  viii. 

%  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  361-367.    #  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  395-398. 
\  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  416-458. 
A  Keim,  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  i,  pp.  46,  47. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  159 

cant  conclusion  that  our  four  Gospels  are  mere  "  surviv- 
als of  the  fittest,"  according  to  the  judgment  of  that 
age.  They  are  the  result  of  a  process  of  sifting  and 
selection  from  a  great  mass  of  materials  more  or  less 
corrupt.  But,  not  only  are  they  simply  four  of  "  many  " 
Gospels ;  they  were  not  gathered  into  one  volume  or 
Canon  until  the  latter  half  of  the  second  centui%y.  Up 
to  that  time  the  various  books  of  the  New  Testament 
were  preserved  by  the  different  congregations  and 
"  sects  "  to  whom  they  were  addressed  or  who  had  se- 
cured them ;  and  it  is  hard  to  say  on  what  principles, 
if  any,  the  originators  of  the  Canoruproceeded  :  circum- 
stances ruled.  In  the  second  half  of  the  second  century 
there  was  a  "  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,"  consisting 
of  two  parts,  called  the  Gospel,  and  the  Apostle. 

The  first  was  complete,  containing  the  four  Gospels 
alone ;  the  second,  which  was  incomplete,  contained 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  Epistles — i.  e.,  thirteen 
letters  of  St.  Paul,  one  of  Peter,  one  of  John  and  the 
Revelation.  How  and  where  this  Canon  originated  is 
uncertain.*  Possibly  the  birthplace  was  Asia  Minor, 
but  this  is  by  no  means  certain.  It  is  a  fact,  however, 
that  Irengeus  and  other  fathers  had  a  Canon  which  they 
considered  Apostolic.  Even  in  the  fourth  century  the 
Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  the  second  of  Peter,  and 
the  second  and  third  of  John  were  not  universally  re- 
ceived as  canonical  works,  f  But  slowly  they  were  all 
adopted  by  various  councils. 

It  thus  appears  that  each  one  has  to  review  for 
himself  the  external  and  internal  evidences  in  favor  of 

*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Canon." 

f  Eusebius,  "  Ecclesiastical  History,"  Book  III,  chap.  xxv. 


160  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  accept  or  reject  them  according 
to  the  strength  or  weakness  of  such  evidences.  It  may 
be  said  just  here,  "  The  men  of  the  time  of  Irenoeus 
ought  to  know  better  than  we  what  were  genuine  and 
authentic  writings  and  what  were  not."  But  obviously 
we  must  consider  their  critical  powers  and  know  why 
and  how  they  were  led  to  adopt  such  and  such  opinions. 
Unfortunately,  they  are  known  to  be  men  of  very  weak 
judgment,  who  accepted  the  miraculous  as  a  matter  of 
course,  and  attributed  writings  to  the  Apostles  on  very 
slender  grounds.  Thus  Irenseus,  in  an  oft-quoted  pas- 
sage, says :  "It  is  not  possible  that  the  Gospels  can  be 
more  or  fewer  than  they  are.  For,  since  there  are  four 
zones  of  the  world  in  which  we  live  and  four  principal 
winds,  while  the  church  is  scattered  throughout  all  the 
world,  and  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  church  is  the 
Gospel,  it  is  fitting  that  she  should  have  four  pillars 
breathing  out  immortality,"  etc.  "  Now  "  (Strauss  long 
ago  remarked)  "  this  strange  mode  of  proof  is  not 
indeed  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  that  the  circum- 
stances so  stated  constituted  the  reason  why  Irenseus 
adopted  neither  more  nor  fewer  Gospels ;  on  the  con- 
trary, these  four  had  already  achieved  a  position  of  pre- 
eminent credit  in  the  circles  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
striving  as  it  was  after  catholic  unity,  and  it  was  this 
position,  thus  already  given  which  Irenseus  sought  to 
justify  according  to  the  spirit  of  his  age ;  but  it  is  pre- 
cisely in  this  explanation  that  we  recognize  a  spirit 
entirely  alien  to  that  of  our  own  time — to  that  of  intel- 
ligent or  reasonable  criticism."  *   Surely  men  permeated 

*  Strauss's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  English  translation,  vol.  i,  p.  57. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  161 

by  a  spirit  which  could  entertain  such  fancies  were 
most  uncritical.  But,  however  much  we  may  si^pose 
that  men  in  their  position  ought  to  have  known,  yet 
there  is  ample  reason  to  suspect  their  knowledge. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  (and  this  is  a  third  point  even 
more  important  than  the  fact  that  the  Gospels  are 
"survivals  of  the  fittest,"  selections  from  "many" 
gospels,  which  assumed  their  present  shape  about  the 
end  of  the  second  century),  we  know  that  none  of  the 
fathers  before  Irenmis  explicitly  refers  to  our  Gospels^ 
and  attributes  them  to  the  persons  whose  names  they 
bear.  Let  us  examine  the  so-called  "  Apostolic  Fathers  " 
in  order: 

First,  We  find  in  the  writings  of  Clement  of  Eome, 
Polycarp,  Irenseus,  and  Barnabas,  composed  during  the 
first  quarter  of  the  second  century,  many  references  to 
and  some  plain  quotations  from  some  documents  or  tra- 
ditionary accounts  of  our  Lord's  life,  but  none  of  these 
fathers  explicitly  attributes  such  documents  to  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  or  John. 

Second.  Papias,  who  probably  wrote  his  "  Exposi- 
tion of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord"  between  125  and  150 
a.  p.,  is  the  first  one  who  explicitly  attributes  any  writ- 
ings to  Matthew  or  Mark.  He  says :  "  Mark  having 
become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  accurately 
whatsoever  he  remembered.  It  was  not,  however,  in 
the  exact  order  that  he  related  the  sayings  or  deeds  of 
Christ,  for  he  neither  heard  the  Lord  nor  accompanied 
Him.  But  afterward,  as  I  said,  he  accompanied  Peter, 
who  accommodated  his  instructions  to  the  necessities  of 
his  hearers,  but  with  no  intention  of  giving  a  regular 
narrative  of  the  Lord's  sayings.  Wherefore  Mark 
made  no  mistake  in  thus  writing  some  things  as  he 


1G2  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

remembered  tlietn.  For  of  one  thing  he  took  especial 
care,  not  to  omit  anything  he  had  heard,  and  not  to  put 
anything  fictitious  into  the  statements." 

Of  Matthew  this  father  says :  "  Matthew  put  to- 
gether the  oracles  (speeches)  of  the  Lord  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  and  each  one  interpreted  them  as  best  he 
could."  *  This  passage  can  be  better  understood  in 
connection  with  other  quotations  from  later  fathers. 
Irenseus  tells  us :  "  Matthew  issued  a  written  Gospel 
among  the  Hebrews  in  their  own  dialect,  while  Peter 
and  Paul  were  preaching  at  Pome  and  laying  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Church.  After  their  departure  (decease), 
Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  did  also 
hand  down  to  us  in  writing  what  had  been  preached  by 
Peter.'1  f  This  is  plainly  a  repetition  of  Papias's  opinion, 
and  all  subsequent  notices  are  the  same ;  but  it  is  note- 
worthy that  Irengeus  and  later  fathers  say  that  Mark 
wrote  his  Gospel  after  Peter's  death  ;  while  Papias  gives 
us  to  understand  that  he  wrote  it  during  the  Apostle's 
lifetime.  Indeed,  some  of  the  later  fathers  say  that 
Peter  authorized  Mark's  Gospel.  But  Dean  Alford — 
a  most  conservative  writer — unhesitatingly  rejects  this 
statement,  "  because  no  such  authorization  is  apparent," 
and  "  had  such  been  the  case  we  should  have  found  it 
called  the  Gospel  according  to  Peter,  not  according  to 
Mark."  He  thinks  that  the  only  inference  that  may 
be  fairly  drawn  from  this  general  tradition  is  "  that 
Mark,  from  continual  intercourse  with  and  listening  to 
Peter,  and  possibly  from  preservation  of  many  of  his 
narratives  entire,  may  have  been  able,  after  his  death, 


*  "  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  vol.  i,  p.  155. 
f  "  Against  Heresies,"  Book  III,  chap.  i. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  163 

or  at  all  events  when  separated  from  him,  to  preserve 
in  his  Gospel  those  vivid  and  original  touches  of  de- 
scription and  filling  out  of  the  incidents  which  we  now 
discover  in  it.  Further  than  this  (he  adds)  I  do  not 
think  we  are  authorized  in  assuming,  and  even  this  is 
conjecture  only"  * 

Owing  to  the  great  varieties  of  the  tradition  con- 
cerning Mark's  Gospel,  I  think  we  can  not  attach  much 
importance  to  it.  Dr.  Davidson's  estimate  of  it  seems 
just.  "  A  careful  examination  of  Papias's  testimony  (he 
says)  shows  that  it  does  not  relate  to  our  present  Gos- 
pel, nor  bring  Mark  into  connection  with  its  author. 
All  we  learn  from  it  is,  that  Mark  wrote  notes  of  a  Gos- 
pel which  was  not  our  Canonical  one."  Papias  says 
Mark  related  the  sayings  of  Christ  "  not  in  order." 
"  The  opposite  of  '  not  in  order,'  "  says  Davidson,  "  is 
arrangement.  But  this  statement  is  not  applicable  to  our 
present  Gospel  of  Mark,  for  every  one  sees  that  Mark 
did  write  an  arranged  work,  like  Matthew's  and  Luke's. 
The  difficulty  of  reconciling  this  testimony  with  the 
condition  of  the  present  Gospel  is  therefore  palpable."  f 
Hence  we  conclude  that  the  earliest  tradition  concern- 
ing Mark's  writing  a  Gospel  shows  at  most  only  that  he 
made  notes  of  Peter's  sermons  which  were  subsequently 
worked  over  by  an  unknown  author  and  incorporated 
into  our  present  Gospel  which  was  attributed  as  a 
whole  to  Mark.  What  Papias  says  about  Matthew 
does  not  prove  that  he  wrote  our  "  Matthew,"  for  two 
cogent  reasons : 


*  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  i,  Prolegomena,  chap,  iii,  §  2, 
pp.  34,  35. 

t  Davidson's  "  Introduction,"  pp.  533-584. 


164  EVOLUTION  CF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

First,  lie  merely  states  that  Matthew  "  put  together 
the  speeches  of  the  Lord,"  probably  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  and  such  like  (Matthew  v-vii,  etc.),  but  our 
present  Gospel  contains  many  narratives  as  well  as 
speeches. 

Secondly,  Papias,  says  "  Matthew  wrote  in  the  He- 
brew (i.  e.,  Aramaic)  language,"  but  our  Gospel  is  writ- 
ten in  Greek,  and  even  Dean  Alford  does  not  believe 
that  it  is  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Matthew.  The 
passage  in  Irenseus  about  Matthew  is  also  a  mere  repe- 
tition of  Papias,  as  are  the  other  early  patristic  tradi- 
tions. 

"  The  earliest  Apostolic  Fathers  have  no  quotation 
from  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  nor  any  express 
allusion  to  it.  In  Clement's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
(chapter  xii),  a  place  resembling  Luke  vi,  36-38  in 
some  respects,  differs  from  it  and  all  the  gospel  parallels 
so  much,  that  it  seems  to  have  been  taken  from  tradi- 
tion. Hermas  contains  no  allusion  to  it ;  and  Papias 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  acquainted  with  it.  The 
Ignatian  Epistles  show  no  trace  of  acquaintance  with 
our  Gospel.  The  Epistle  of  Poly  carp  to  the  Philip- 
plans  has  one  passage  (chapter  ii),  "  Kemembering  what 
the  Lord  has  taught  us,  saying,  '  Judge  not,  and  ye  shall 
not  be  judged ;  forgive,  and  ye  shall  be  forgiven ;  be 
ye  merciful,  and  ye  shall  obtain  mercy ;  for  with  the 
same  measure  that  ye  mete  withal  it  shall  be  measured 
to  you  again,'  in  which  both  Matthew  and  Luke's  Gos- 
pels may  have  been  used,  the  former  more  closely  than 
the  latter."  *  "We  come  now  to  the  testimony  of  Justin 
Martyr,  middle  of  the  second  century.     In  his  writings 

*  Davidson's  "  Introduction,"  vol.  i,  pp  443,  444. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  165 

there  are  numerous  quotations  from  and  references  to 
either  our  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  or  to 
their  originals,  and  be  explicitly  mentions  "memoirs 
which  were  drawn  up  by  the  Apostles  and  those  who 
followed  with  them."  *  He  also  says  that  these  mem- 
oirs were  "  called  Gospels,"  but  he  does  not  say  that  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  and  Luke  wrote  them.  True ;  when  he 
speaks  of  the  memoirs  having  been  composed  "  by  Apos- 
tles and  those  who  followed  with  them,"  we,  believing 
that  Mark  and  Luke  followed  with  Apostles,  naturally 
think  of  them,  and  yet  we  may  be  utterly  mistaken. 
For,  while  Justin  may  have  referred  to  our  present  Gos- 
pels, it  is  obvious  that  he  may  have  referred  to  their 
originals — to  the  "  notes  "  of  Mark,  "  the  speeches  "  re- 
corded by  Matthew  and  other  apostolic  or  post-apostolic 
traditions  or  narratives.  This  opinion  is  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that  Justin  evidently  had  other  documents 
before  him  when  he  wrote  the  "  Dialogue  "  and  "  Apol- 
ogy," which  he  considered  of  equal  authority  with  the 
"  Memoirs."  Thus,  he  tells  us  that  Jesus  was  born  in 
a  cave,  which  contradicts  Luke  ii,  12,  16 ;  that  when 
He  was  baptized,  "  a  fire  was  kindled  in  the  Jordan  " ; 
and,  finally,  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  working  as  a 
carpenter  when  among  men,  making  plows  and  yokes."  f 
These  statements  are  all  entirely  different  from  the 
Gospel  notices  of  the  same  events,  and  indicate  a  differ- 
ent source ;  and  Strauss's  opinion  that  they  are  taken 
from  the  "  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews  "  seems  quite  credi- 
ble.    Hence  we  seem  forced  to  the  conclusion  that,  if 


*  "  Dialogue  with   Trypho,"  chap,   ciii,   First  Apology,   chap, 
xvi,  etc. 

f  Ibid.,  chaps,  lxxviii,  lxxxviii. 


166  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Justin  used  our  Gospels,  he  also  used  other  documents 
which  he  considered  of  equal  authority  with  them,  but 
it  is  more  probable  that  he  used  the  originals  of  our 
Gospels.*  At  any  rate,  he  does  not  explicitly  ascribe  the 
Gospels  to  those  whose  names  they  bear,  and  this  is  the 
important  fact  to  be  remembered.  We  may  attempt, 
with  Canon  Westcott  and  others,  to  show  that  he  did 
not  do  this  because  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  under 
which  he  wrote ;  but  the  fact  remains  that  neither  Jus- 
tin nor  any  other  of  the  Apostolic  fathers  explicitly 
ascribes  our  Gospels  to  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke.f 

We  seem,  therefore,  to  be  driven  to  this  conclusion : 
While  the  Gospels  contain  much  of  the  real  apostolic 
tradition  about  Jesus,  yet  we  do  not  and  can  not  know 
exactly  who  wrote  that  tradition,  and  the  Gospels  as- 
sumed their  present  shape  so  slowly  and  gradually  that 
some  unhistorical  elements  may  have  been  incorporated 
in  the  narratives.  The  oldest  part  of  the  Gospels  is 
doubtless  that  which  is  common  to  them  all — that  which 
has  been  aptly  called  "  the  Triple  Tradition."  This 
probably  includes  the  "  speeches"  recorded  by  Matthew, 
the  "  notes "  of  Mark  and  Luke,  and  other  traditions 
which  were  circulated  among  the  early  disciples.  Those 
parts  which  are  peculiar  to  each  Gospel  as  it  now  stands 
were  additions  of  the  later  or  latest  redacteurs.  The 
opinion  I  hold,  then,  is  that  the  authors  of  our  Gospels 
drew  what  is  common  to  them  from  the  same  source ; 
but  whether  that  was  a  written  document,  or  an  oral 
tradition  stereotyped  in  a  certain  form,  or  both,  I  do 

*  See  p.  403. 

f  See  Westcott  on  the  Canon — part  referring  to  Justin  ;  and  Dr. 
George  P.  Fisher's  "  Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief,"  p. 
191,  etc. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  167 

not  know,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  stop  to  consider. 
It  thus  appears  that  the  earliest  and  most  important  ex- 
ternal evidence  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  that  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke  wrote  the  Gospels  which  bear  their 
names ;  the  most  it  can  do  is  to  create  a  probability  that 
these  evangelists  made  certain  "  notes  "  on  our  Lord's 
life  and  teaching,  which  formed  the  basis  of  our  pres- 
ent Gospels  which  were  finally  ascribed  as  a  whole  to 
these  evangelists. 

The  internal  evidence  leads  to  the  same  conclusion. 
Dr.  Davidson  points  out  that,  in  "Matthew,"  "some 
things  are  put  in  a  wrong  order,  and  are  therefore  chro- 
nologically incorrect " ;  "  things  are  related  in  a  way 
which  shows  a  mixture  of  later  traditions";  "certain 
events,  for  instance  the  feeding  of  the  five  and  the  four 
thousand,  are  doubled,  as  the  facts  are  substantially 
the  same,  the  minor  circumstances  alone  being  differ- 
ent "  ;  and,  finally,  "  it  contains  unhistorical  and  myth- 
ical elements.  The  most  palpable  example  of  this  is 
in  chap,  xxvii,  52,  where  we  are  told  that,  at  the  expi- 
ration of  Jesus  the  graves  were  opened,  and  many  bod- 
ies of  the  saints  who  slept  arose,  came  out  of  their  rest- 
ing-places after  the  resurrection  of  their  Lord,  and  even 
went  into  the  holy  city,  where  they  appeared  to  many. 
The  apocryphal  nature  of  this  account  is  apparent."  * 

The  author,  in  these  last  words,  expresses  the  real 
characteristics  of  the  Gospels  which  throw  suspicion 
upon  their  historical  value ;  and  M.  Kenan  takes  the 
straightforward  course  when  he  unhesitatingly  declares 
that  "  it  is  evident  that  the  Gospels  are  in  part  legend- 
ary, since  they  are  full  of  miracles  and  the  supernatu- 

*  Davidson's  "  Introduction,"  i,  pp.  386-392. 


168  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

ral."  *  All  minor  objections  to  their  historical  character, 
such  as  the  reduplication  of  events,  the  contradictions 
in  the  genealogies,  etc.,  might  receive  more  or  less  satis- 
factory answers ;  f  but  the  great  difficulty  lies  in  the  nar- 
ratives of  miracles.  Undoubtedly,  if  we  were  to  find 
such  narratives  in  the  Sacred  Books  of  India — in  any 
other  documents  than  our  Bible — we  should  unhesitat- 
ingly set  them  aside  as  legends  ;  but,  having  been  taught 
that  the  Bible  is  the  infallible  word  of  God,  that  Christ 
was  God,  and  that  "  with  God  all  things  are  possible," 
we  accept  without  question  the  narratives  of  miracles 
found  in  this  Book.  But  our  age  insists  that  the  very 
same  objections  apply  to  the  Bible-miracles  that  are 
applicable  to  other  miracles ;  in  other  words,  all  mira- 
cles must  be  proved  by  unimpeachable  evidence  before 
they  can  be  accepted,  and  all  narratives  of  miracles  must 
be  subjected  to  a  most  rigid  examination,  while  the  very 
fact  that  they  narrate  miracles  casts  stcspicion  upon 
their  historical  character.  We  demand  the  same  sort 
and  amount  of  external  evidence  to  prove  the  authen- 
ticity of  documents  narrating  miracles  that  we  require 
to  prove  miracles  themselves.  This  is  what  our  age  in- 
sists upon,  and  there  is  no  use  in  denouncing  those  who 
hold  this  view  ;  there  is  no  use  in  accusing  them  of  be- 
ing influenced  by  a  false  philosophy  or  immoral  mo- 
tives, for  the  latter  charge  is  certainly  false  in  many 
cases,  while  the  former  is  hardly  less  so,  since  the  ques- 
tion is,  What  is  false  philosophy  ?  Is  that  a  false  phi- 
losophy which  insists  on  treating  all  documents  alike 
before  they  are  proved  to  be  different  in  origin  and  na- 

*  Renan,  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  p.  17. 

f  Alford,  "  Greek  Testament,"  i,  Prolegomena,  chap,  i,  §  4,  etc. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  169 

ture  ?  Surely  not ;  and  this  is  all  that  Biblical  critics 
do.  They  freely  grant  the  a  priori  possibility  of  mira- 
cles, but  they  insist  that  any  given  case  of  miracle  must 
be  proved,  and  they  further  urge  that  it  is  simply  a  dic- 
tate of  common  sense  that  an  extraordinary  event  must 
he  substantiated  by  an  extraordinary  amount  of  evi- 
dence. Can  this  be  done  in  the  case  of  all  the  Gospel 
miracles  ?  This  question  will  be  answered  later  on. 
Meanwhile  I  may  remark  that  it  is  now  evident  why  it 
is  so  important  to  know  who  wrote  the  Gospels,  when 
they  were  written,  and  under  what  circumstances.  If 
we  had  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  eye-witnesses 
wrote  the  narratives  of  miracles  found  in  the  Gospels  ; 
if  we  knew  that  such  witnesses  were  men  of  acute  crit- 
ical powers,  who  could  not  easily  be  deceived  ;  and,  final- 
ly, if  we  were  shown  that  the  miracles  were  of  such  a 
character  that  no  cause  recognized  by  natural  science 
could  explain  them,  then  we  might  not  hesitate  to  ac- 
cept the  narratives  as  authentic.  To  make  myself  suf- 
ficiently clear,  I  will  add  :  If  the  earliest  Fathers — 
Clement  of  Rome,  Polycarp,  Barnabas,  Papias,  and 
Justin — had  told  us  that  eye-witnesses  of  the  miracles 
wrote  the  Gospels,  and  if  they  had  also  given  us  a  sketch 
of  their  intellectual  and  moral  characters,  showing  them 
to  be  men  of  acute  critical  powers,  who  accepted  the 
said  miracles  only  after  thoroughly  examining  their  na- 
ture and  cause,  I  would  consider  such  evidence  "  suffi- 
cient," at  least  for  myself ;  but  it  must  be  plain,  from 
the  foregoing  sketch  of  patristic  testimony,  that  these 
Fathers  do  not  furnish  us  such  evidence.  It  rather  ap- 
pears that  it  is  quite  possible,  at  least,  that  the  narratives 
of  miracles,  for  the  most  part,  are  after-additions  to  and 
embellishments  of  mere  "  notes  "  which  Matthew,  and 


170  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

probably  Mark  and  Luke — the  latter  at  second-hand — 
made  upon  our  Lord's  life ;  which  "  notes,"  so  far  as  we 
know,  did  not  contain  accounts  of  miracles.  This  pos- 
sibility is  itself  sufficient  to  prevent  us  from  insisting 
on  accepting  the  ?niracles  as  an  article  of  faith,  a  sine 
qua  non  of  church-membership. 

It  will  be  observed  that  I  have  not  attempted  to  as- 
sign any  definite  date  to  either  one  of  our  first  three 
Gospels.     I  have  not  done  so — 

First,  because  it  seems  impossible  to  ascertain  the 
exact  dates  of  these  writings.  Every  author  has  his  own 
estimate,  and,  where  "doctors"  thus  disagree,  it  be- 
hooves us  to  hesitate. 

Secondly,  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  my  purpose  to 
ascertain  such  dates.  The  Gospels  were  doubtless  com- 
posed within  a  century  after  the  death  of  our  Lord  ;  and 
it  matters  not  whether  any  one  of  them  was  written  be- 
fore the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  or  not,  at  least  so  far 
as  the  conclusions  of  this  book  are  concerned.  Proba- 
bly Matthew  made  his  "notes"  before  the  year  70, 
and  Mark  and  Luke  made  theirs  some  time  between 
that  disastrous  year  and  the  year  100  a.  d.  And  subse- 
quent redacteurs  may  have  filled  up  their  outlines.  At 
any  rate,  this  is  about  the  author's  view  ;  but,  whether  it 
be  accepted  or  not,  it  is  hoped  that  the  slow  and  grad- 
ual formation  of  the  Gospel  narratives  has  been  suffi- 
ciently proved,  while  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  the 
traditional  view  rests  on  a  foundation  of  sand.* 

It  will  also  be  observed  that  I  have  thus  far  spoken 
of  the  first  three  Gospels  alone,  and  have  ignored  the 
"  Gospel  according  to  John^     I  have  done  this  because 

*  See  "Supernatural  Religion,"  vol.  i,  part  ii. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  171 

the  latter  differs  in  many  respects  from  the  former,  and 
it  is  customary  to  consider  this  Gospel  apart  from  the 
others.  It  would,  of  course,  be  folly  to  attempt,  in  this 
connection,  a  full  discussion  of  the  origin  and  authorship 
of  this  Gospel,  for  hundreds  of  volumes  have  been  writ- 
ten on  this  subject.  I  must,  therefore,  merely  express 
my  opinion,  giving  three  or  four  reasons  only  for  such 
an  opinion,  and  refer  the  reader  to  the  large  treatises 
which  have  been  written  on  this  question. 

I  think,  then,  after  considering  with  an  unbiased 
mind  the  arguments  pro  and  con,  that  the  Johannine 
authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  "  not  proven."  In 
the  first  place,  none  of  the  earliest  Fathers — those  already 
quoted — ascribe  the  Gospel  to  John,  and  their  alleged 
references  to  or  quotations  from  it  are  not  even  so  clear 
as  those  to  the  other  Gospels.  It  is  not  expressly  as- 
cribed to  John  until  between  the  years  160  a.  d.  and 
200,  when  the  Muratorian  Fragment  mentions  it  and 
Irenaeus  says,  "John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who 
also  had  leaned  upon  His  breast,  did  himself 'publish  a 
Gospel  during  his  residence  at  Ephesus,  in  Asia  Minor."  * 

"  The  testimony  of  this  Father  is  thought  to  be 
weighty  because  of  his  early  relation  to  the  Church  of 
Asia  Minor,  and  to  Polycarp.  It  should  be  noticed, 
however,  that  he  does  not  appeal  to  Polycarp  as  a 
voucher  for  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  Gospel, 
nor  to  any  disciple  of  John.  The  relation  of  Irenaeus 
to  Polycarp  and  the  Church  of  Asia  Minor  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  intimate.  He  was  only  a  hoy  when  he 
listened  to  Polycarp's  sayings  relative  to  Christ,  which 
were  taken  from  Apostolic  tradition."     And  the  author 

*  "  Against  Heresies,"  Book  III,  chap.  i. 


172  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

just  quoted  shows  that  Irenaeus  made  "  mistakes  "  about 
John's  writings,  and  "  confounded  his  own  notions  and 
inferences  with  facts."  \ 

Secondly,  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Revelation 
(St.  John)  could  not  have  written  the  fourth  Gospel, 
because  the  two  boohs  are  absolutely  contradictory  in 
spirit  and  style.  We  have  seen  that  the  author  of  the 
Apocalypse  was  a  real  "  Son  of  Thunder,"  who  breathes 
out  threatenings  and  slaughter  against  "  those  who  say 
they  are  apostles  and  are  not "  ;  while  the  key-note  to 
John's  Gospel  and  Epistles  is,  "  My  little  children,  love 
one  another."  In  the  one  book  the  Apostle  appears  as 
he  did  in  real  life — a  Boanerges,  calling  down  tire 
from  heaven  upon  the  enemies  of  the  Lord ;  in  the 
other,  he  appears  as  the  "  Disciple  of  Love,"  leaning  on 
the  Master's  bosom  and  exhorting  his  fellow-Christians 
to  love  one  another.  It  requires  no  specially  acute  crit- 
ical powers  to  perceive  this  very  striking  contrast  be- 
tween the  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel.  The  ordinary 
lay  reader  will  observe  it.  But  it  may  be  said  that 
the  Apostle's  nature  may  have  undergone  a  develop- 
ment in  grace  during. the  interval  between  the  writing 
of  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel.  If  so,  such  a  devel- 
opment was  simply  miraculous.  The  Apostle  must 
have  been  past  middle  life — perhaps  sixty  years  old — 
when  he  wrote  the  Revelation,  and  a  man's  style  is  so 
thoroughly  settled  at  this  time  of  life  that  it  would  be 
a  psychological  impossibility  that  he  should  change  as 
profoundly  as  the  Apostle  must  have  changed  if  he 
wrote  the  Gospel  during  the  short  period  of  fifteen  or 
twenty  years  which  are  supposed  to  have   intervened 

*  Davidson's  "  Introduction,"  ii,  p.  389. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  173 

between  the  composition  of  the  two  books  in  question. 
The  more  one  considers  this  argument,  the  more  thor- 
oughly convinced  will  he  become  that  the  author  of  the 
Revelation  and  the  author  of  the  Gospel  are  not  the 
same  person. 

Thirdly,  there  is  at  least  one  story  in  this  Gospel 
which  St.  John  could  never  have  written — which  is 
clearly  a  later  addition — viz.,  the  story  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Lazarus.  Of  all  the  miracles  which  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  wrought,  this  is  unquestionably  the  greatest, 
and  yet  neither  "  Matthew"  "  Mark"  nor  "  Lnke  "  has 
one  word  to  say  about  it.  Why  this  remarkable  omis- 
sion? the  thoughtful  reader  must  ask.  Surely  this  mir- 
acle was  a  greater  display  of  superhuman  or  divine 
power  than  any  other  which  Jesus  is  said  to  have 
wrought — than  the  raising  of  the  boy  at  Nam,  for  in- 
stance, and  yet  neither  of  the  first  three  Gospels  men- 
tions it.  The  various  attempts  of  commentators  to  re- 
move this  difficulty  are  thoroughly  unsatisfactory. 

Thus  M.  Godet,  one  of  the  ablest  defenders  of  the 
old  view,  holds  -that  the  omission  was  due,  first,  to  the 
gradual  formation  of  the  Gospel-tradition  ;  and,  second- 
ly, to  consideration  of  the  feelings  and  position  of  the 
family  at  Bethany.  According  to  this  author,  there 
were  three  streams  of  tradition,  which  united  to  form 
the  Gospels  :  First,  "  that  started  by  the  Apostles  them- 
selves, and  this  probably  constituted  the  permanent  and 
universal  stock  of  oral  evangelization  and  passed  in  a 
tolerably  uniform  manner  into  the  written  tradition, 
into  our  synoptic  Gospels."  Secondly,  "  other  stories 
were  started  by  those  members  of  the  church  who  had 
either  been  subjects  or  witnesses  of  the  facts.  These 
coming  more  or  less  accidentally  to  the  knowledge  of 


174  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

the  writers  of  the  Gospels,  formed  the  special  treasure 
of  each  of  our  synoptics."  Finally,  other  stories  "  were 
purposely  and  at  first  withdrawn  from  public  narration, 
or  were  only  included  in  it  with  a  certain  reserve  of 
names  and  things."  The  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  M. 
Godet  claims,  belonged  to  the  third  class  of  stories. 
'*  There  was  a  feeling  that  the  home  at  Bethany,  that 
sanctuary  still  inhabited  by  the  family  into  whose  inti- 
macy the  Lord  had  been  received,  should  be  respected 
in  public  teaching  and  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 
within  the  churches."  It  seems  incredible  that  M. 
Godet  should  have  been  able  to  persuade  even  himself 
that  such  an  explanation  is  tenable ;  for,  in  the  first 
place,  it  was  impossible  that  so  marvelous  an  event  as 
this  should  have  been  kept  a  secret,  and,  according  to 
the  narrative  itself,  numbers  flocked  from  Jerusalem  to 
Bethany  to  see  the  resurrected  Lazarus  (John,  xii,  9). 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  notoriety  and  danger 
of  the  family  could  not  have  been  much  increased 
by  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  recording  this  event 
some  thirty  or  forty  years  after  its  occurrence.  Sec- 
ondly, as  just  intimated,  even  if  the  alleged  reserve 
had  been  possible  and  necessary  during  the  first  few 
years  of  apostolic  preaching,  it  was  certainly  not  neces- 
sary when  the  synoptic  Gospels  were  written,  for  the 
home  at  Bethany  was  then  probably  completely  broken 
up.  While,  therefore,  "  the  mention  or  omission  of  a 
single  miracle  performed  by  the  Lord  is,"  in  most  cases, 
"  too  accidental  a  circumstance  "  to  be  specially  noticed, 
yet  the  omission  of  such  a  miracle  by  the  earliest  narra- 
tors, when  there  was  every  reason  why  it  should  be  re- 
corded, is  wholly  inexplicable,  and  proves  conclusively 
that  they  knew  nothing  about  it.     And  since  this  is  so ; 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  175 

since  Matthew — who,  according  to  the  popular  view, 
wrote  the  first  Gospel,  and  must  have  been  among  the 
disciples  who  witnessed  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus 
(John,  xii,  6,  8,  16),  or  at  least  must  have  heard  of  this 
event  from  those  who  were  present  if  it  ever  happened 
— since  this  Apostle,  as  well  as  u  Mark  "  and  "  Luke,"  has 
said  nothing  about  this  wonderful  event,  why  should 
John  %  It  is  incredible  that  the  first  three  Evangelists 
should  have  ignored  this  miracle  if  it  were  ever  wrought. 
Their  silent  protest  against  the  truth  of  this  story,  as 
well  as  its  apostolic  authorship,  is  fatal.  But,  if  the 
writer  fabricated  this  narrative,  surely  we  must  hesitate 
to  trust  him  implicitly  in  other  narratives. 

Hence  we  conclude  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was 
written  many  years  after  St.  John's  death,  and  merely 
attributed  to  him  by  tradition,  in  order  to  give  it  author- 
ity in  the  Church. 

Finally,  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  peculiarly  doctrinal 
and  not  an  historical  treatise,  as  is  evidenced  not  simply 
by  its  opening  words,  but  by  its  general  tone — the 
sixth  chapter,  and  so  on.  And  its  doctrines  about  the 
"  Word"  indicate  its  source.  It  was  evidently  written 
by  a  philosopher  who  belonged  to  the  school  of  Philo. 
He  may  have  been  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  who,  after 
the  Apostle's  death,  became  to  him  what  Plato  did  to 
Socrates — an  expounder  of  his  masters  doctrines  in  his 
own  language  and  style;  but  this  exposition  almost 
amounts  to  a  perversion,  since  he  makes  the  bigoted 
Jew,  who  wrote  the  Revelation — who  was  a  "  pillar  "  of 
Jewish  orthodoxy  and  narrowness  (Galatians,  ii,  9) — talk 
most  liberally  about  "  other  sheep,  not  of  this  (Jewish) 
fold  "  (x,  16,  etc.),  and  so  on.  The  catholicity — the  Gen- 
tilism — of  the  author  of  John's  Gospel  equals  that  of 


176  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

St.  Paul,  if  it  does  not  surpass  it.  But  the  main  indi- 
cation of  tlie  authorship  is  to  be  found  in  the  doctrine 
of  "the  Word."  This  is  merely  an  advance — but  it 
is  an  advance — on  Philo's  doctrine ;  and  hence  while 
this  Gospel  may  have  been  written  by  an  elder  or 
member  of  the  Ephesian  Church,  who  claimed  to  set 
forth  St.  John's  doctrines  in  a  philosophic  form,  yet  it 
"  could  not  have  been  written  by  John,  or  even  read 
aloud  to  him  after  it  had  been  written."  * 

Of  course,  all  the  foregoing  arguments,  as  well  as 
others,  against  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  have  been  considered  by  such  writers  as  M. 
Godet,  Dr.  Fisher,  etc.  Godet's  argument,  especially, 
in  favor  of  the  traditional  view,  is  quite  conclusive 
against  special  theories  of  certain  critics ;  but,  after  con- 
sidering his  argument  carefully  and  candidly,  I  am 
forced  to  say  that  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to  affect  the 
main  contention  of  the  critics.  While  he  proves  very 
clearly,  for  instance,  that  the  date  of  the  composition  of 
the  Gospel  which  Baur  or  even  Hilgenfeld  assigns  (a.  d. 
160-170  and  130-140  respectively)  is  too  late;  while 
he  shows  that  it  was  in  existence  at  least  as  early  as  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  (this,  of  course,  does 
not  prove  that  St.  John  wrote  it)  ;  while  he  even  proves 
that  too  much  stress  has  been  laid  by  different  critics  on 
alleged  non-Johannine  characteristics,  the  Logos-idea, 
etc. — yet  his  attempted  refutation  of  the  foregoing 
(four)  arguments  is  not  conclusive,  and  nothing  he 
says  prevents  one  from  holding  that  a  Philonic  disci- 


*  Rev.  H.  R.  Haweis's  "  Christ  and  Christianity,  Story  of  the 
Four,"  p.  103,  etc — an  eloquent  and,  on  the  whole,  a  satisfactory 
work. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  177 

pie  of  St.  John  may  have  written  this  Gospel  be- 
tween the  beginning  and  the  middle  of  the  second  cent- 
ury* 

But,  lest  any  one  should  think  that  the  establish- 
ment of  the  non-apostolic  authorship  of  the  Gospels  is 
necessary  to  the  main  argument  of  this  book — especially 
the  discussion  of  miracles  which  follows — I  shall  quote 
and  comment  upon  a  very  pregnant  sentence  of  Prof. 
Huxley's  which  was  called  forth  during  his  controversy 
with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wace.  He  expresses  an  anxiety  to 
"  get  rid  of  the  common  assumption  that  the  determina- 
tion of  the  authorship  and  of  the  dates  of  these  works  " 
(the  Gospels)  "  is  a  matter  of  fundamental  importance. 
That  assumption  is  based  upon  the  notion  that  what 
contemporary  witnesses  say  must  be  true,  or  at  least  has 
always  a  prima  facie  claim  to  be  so  regarded ;  so  that 
if  the  writers  of  any  of  the  Gospels  were  contem- 
poraries of  the  events  (and  still  more  if  they  were  in 
the  position  of  eye-witnesses),  the  miracles  they  narrate 
must  be  historically  true.  .  .  .  But  the  story  of  the 
i  Translation  of  the  Blessed  Martyrs  Marcellinus  and 
Petrus '  (to  which  endless  additions  might  be  made  from 
the  fathers  and  the  mediaeval  writers)  yields,  in  my 
judgment,  satisfactory  proof  that,  where  the  miraculous 
is  concerned,  neither  considerable  intellectual  ability,  nor 
undoubted  honesty,  nor  knowledge  of  the  world,  nor 
proved  faithfulness  as  civil  historians,  nor  profound 
piety,  on  the  part  of  eye-witnesses  and  contempora- 
ries, affords  any  guarantee  of  the  objective  truth  of 
their  statements,  wThen  we  know  that  a  firm  belief 
in  the  miraculous  was  ingrained  in   their  minds,  and 

*  See  "  Supernatural  Religion,"  vol.  ii,  Part  III. 


178  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

was  the  presupposition  of  their  observations  and  rea- 
sonings.'3 * 

For  such  reasons  I  said  above  :  "  If  we  had  sufficient 
evidence  to  show  that  eye-witnesses  wrote  the  narratives 
of  miracles  found  in  the  Gospels  ;  if  we  knew  that  such 
men  were  of  acute  critical  powers  who  could  not  easily 
be  deceived ;  and,  finally,  if  it  were  shown  that  the 
miracles  were  of  such  a  character  that  no  cause  recog- 
nized by  natural  science  could  explain  them,  then  we 
might  not  hesitate  to  accept  the  narratives  as  authen- 
tic." To  draw  out  my  meaning  more  fully,  let  us  sup- 
pose that  the  Gospels  were  written  by  their  traditional 
authors,  and  that  Matthew  and  John,  at  least,  were  eye- 
witnesses of  the  events  they  record,  then  how  many  of 
the  miracles  they  narrate  would  we  be  obliged  to  ac- 
cept as  really  supernatural  events  ? 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  disciples  were  by  no 
means  "  men  of  acute  critical  powers,"  so  well  versed 
in  natural  science  that  their  testimony  must  be  accepted 
as  that  of  experts,  who  accepted  the  miraculous  charac- 
ter of  the  events  they  record  only  after  the  most  rigid 
and  scientific  examination  of  their  nature  and  causes 
which  precluded  all  confounding  of  natural  and  super- 
natural causes.  They  were  simple  Jews  and  Galileans, 
believing  in  the  common  occurrence  of  miracles,  and 
judging  every  extraordinary  event  to  be  a  miracle. 

Hence  I  remark,  first,  we  need  not,  as  I  shall  show 
more  fully  in  the  next  chapter,  accept  any  of  the  heal- 
ings, save  perhaps  one,  as  miracles,  for  medical  science 
has  long  recognized  natural  causes  which  might  have 

*  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  August,  1889,  pp.  457,  458 ;   cf. 
September  number  of  same  review. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  179 

wrought  them.*  The  exception  alluded  to  is  the  cure 
of  the  man  said  to  have  been  born  blind  (John  ix). 
The  sudden  healing  of  the  blind  is  quite  common ;  f 
but  the  cure  of  one  born  blind  by  the  methods  said  to 
have  been  adopted  would  be  truly  miraculous.  Still, 
only  those  who  believe  in  the  verbal  inspiration  of 
Scripture  need  be  troubled  by  the  details  given  in  this 
story — the  parents'  testimony,  etc.  If  St.  John  wrote 
this  account,  a  long  time  intervened  between  its  original 
production  and  the  production  of  the  oldest  manuscript 
we  now  possess — some  two  or  three  hundred  years; 
and  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  a  blind  man 
was  cured  by  Jesus,  and  that  St.  John  recorded  the 
fact,  and  that  his  account  has  been  somewhat  embellished 
by  a  later  copyist. 

It  is  well  known,  and  admitted  by  all,  that  additions 
have  thus  arisen.  For  instance,  John  v,  4,  even  Alford 
grants,  is  a  spurious  later  embellishment  of  the  narrative  ; 
chapter  xxi  is  also  confessedly  a  late  addition  (Godet, 
Alford,  etc.) ;  and  hence  we  need  not  be  particularly 
troubled  by  minute  details,  but  emphasize  only  the 
general  facts,  and,  if  so,  the  above  explanation  of  the 
cure  of  the  blind  man  is  quite  rational  and  credible.  X 

*  See  Tuke's  "  Influence  of  the  Mind  upon  the  Bod)-,"  Part  IV", 
etc. 

f  Tuke,  ibid.,  pp.  446-449, -etc. 

X  One  of  the  most  remarkable  additions  by  a  later  copyist  to  an 
ancient  manuscript  is  the  well-known  passage  I  John  v,  7.  "  The 
spuriousness  of  that  verse,"  says  Archdeacon  Farrar,  "  is  as  abso- 
lutely demonstrable  as  any  critical  conclusion  can  be  "  ;  and  he  gives 
facts  and  reasons  which  sustain  his  assertion.  See  his  "  Early  Days 
of  Christianity,"  vol.  ii,  p.  458,  and  other  commentaries.  Since,  then, 
early  manuscripts  were  so  freely  handled,  it  is  hardly  allowable  to 
build  whole  pyramids  of  apologetics  on  a  few  words. 


180  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

But,  of  course,  this  explanation  gains  strength  when  it 
is  shown,  as  has  been  done,  that  the  apostolic  author- 
ship of  this  Gospel  is  highly  doubtful. 

Secondly.  Supposing  the  Gospels  to  have  been 
written  by  their  traditional  authors,  we  are  not  obliged 
to  accept  the  alleged  raisings  of  the  dead  as  truly  mi- 
raculous events.  In  the  case  of  Jairus's  daughter  the 
account  itself  (Matthew  ix,  24)  explicitly  says  that  the 
maid  was  not  dead  but  only  asleep — i.  e.,  in  a  trance  or 
swoon.  In  the  case  of  the  boy  at  Nain  (Luke,  vii,  2-17) 
we  have  a  story  confessedly  written  by  one  who  was 
not  an  apostle  and  an  eye-witness,  and  we  may  ration- 
ally suppose  that  the  same  thing  happened  here  as  in 
Jairus's  home.  Even  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  need 
not  be  accepted  as  unquestionably  a  miraculous  event — 
except,  of  course,  by  the  verbal  inspirationist — for  in 
this  case,  also,  it  is,  at  first,  said,  u  Lazarus  sleepeth " 
(John,  xi,  11),  which,  however,  is  subsequently  ex- 
plained (xi,  13,  14)  to  mean  that  he  was  really  dead. 
But  without  by  any  means  accepting  M.  Kenan's  dis- 
gusting account  of  the  origin  of  this  story,  we  might  be- 
lieve, supposing  John  to  have  written  it,  that  Lazarus 
really  did  fall  into  a  sleep  or  swoon,  and  remained  so 
for  two  or  three  days  ;  was  buried  in  one  of  the  rock- 
hewn  sepulchres  of  the  time  (not  in  a  grave  dug  in  the 
ground,  as  among  us) ;  and  was,  like  Jairus's  daughter, 
awakened  out  of  this  trance  by  his  Friend. 

This  story,  as  well  as  that  in  chapter  ix,  may  have 
been  slightly  embellished  by  a  subsequent  copyist  of 
St.  John's  manuscript.  But,  as  stated  above,  I  think 
that  the  silence  of  the  other  Gospel  writers  concerning 
this  alleged  event  is  utterly  fatal  to  the  truth  and  apos- 
tolic authorship  of  the  story,  and  hence  much  suspicion 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  181 

is  cast  upon  the  whole  Gospel  narrative.  But  if  St. 
John  did  witness  and  record  this  event,  it  certainly  is 
not  irrational,  in  view  of  the  facts  stated,  to  explain  it 
as  has  been  done. 

Hence  it  appears,  thirdly,  that  even  granting  the 
traditional  authorship  of  the  Gospels,  the  only  miracles 
which  necessarily  bear  a  really  supernatural  appear- 
ance are  the  so-called  nature  miracles,  such  as  the  still- 
ing of  the  tempest,  the  feeding  of  the  live  and  the  four 
thousand  with  the  few  loaves  and  fishes,  and  the  con- 
version of  water  into  wine ;  for  although,  as  Prof.  Hux- 
ley says,  such  a  thing  as  turning  water  into  wine  is  eas- 
ily effected  by  scientific  men,  yet  the  simple  Galileans 
at  Cana  were  not  scientists.  If  these  events  really  hap- 
pened, and  were  witnessed  by  the  writers  of  the  stories, 
it  is  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  give  a  natural 
explanation  of  them.  But  I  shall  offer  in  the  next 
chapter  a  few  considerations  which  I  think  explain  the 
origin  of  these  stories,  without  supposing  the  occur- 
rence of  such  wonderful  events.  I  have  necessarily  an- 
ticipated somewhat,  because  the  question  of  the  author- 
ship of  the  Gospels  is  so  intimately  connected  with  the 
truth  of  the  narratives  of  miracles  which  they  contain, 
and  the  great  importance  of  the  subject  must  be  my 
apology  for  such  anticipation. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  generally  attributed  to 
Luke,  but  the  following  facts  disprove  this  view :  . 

1.  The  earliest  (alleged)  references  in  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers  are  quite  insufficient  to  prove  that  this 
book,  at  least  as  it  now  stands  in  the  New  Testament 
Canon,  was  written  by  Luke.  The  most  satisfactory  wit- 
ness on  this  subject  is,  as  in  other  cases,  Justin  Martyr, 
but  not  only  does  he  fail  to  ascribe  it  expressly  to  Luke, 


182  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

his  alleged  references  to  the  Acts  are  more  than  doubt- 
ful. 

The  first  Father  who  plainly  asserts  that  Luke  wrote 
the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  is  Irenseus,  close  of  the 
second  century.  The  existence,  however,  of  both  the 
Gospel  and  the  Acts,  in  substantially  their  present  form, 
before  this  time — perhaps  before  the  time  of  Justin — is 
satisfactorily  established;  but  we  are  now  more  espe- 
cially concerned  with  their  authorship,  and  any  one 
who  will  carefully  examine  the  writings  of  the  earliest 
Fathers  must  admit  that  the  Lukan  authorship  of  the 
books  in  question  can  not  be  proved  from  them. 

2.  The  internal  evidence  indicates  that  the  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  were  written  after  Luke's  time.     What- 
ever we  may  think  of   Baur's  celebrated  theory  that 
Christianity  arose  according  to  the  great  "  law  of  devel- 
opment by  antagonism"  yet  we  must  admit  that,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  two   parties  existed   in   the   Apostolic 
Church— one,  the  Gentile   party,  headed  by  St.  Paul, 
the  other,  or  Jewish  party,  headed  by  Peter,  James, 
and  John — and  between  these  two  parties  there  raged 
an  unceasing  conflict  over  the  observance  of  the  Cere- 
monial Law  of   the  Jewish    Church.     This  is  conclu- 
sively proved  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  the 
Acts.     It  is  upon  this  fact   that  many  modern  critics 
base  their  view  of  the  origin  of  Acts.     They  claim  that 
it  is  plainly  the  work  of  one  who  wished  to  conciliate 
the  two  parties.     Peter  is  made  to  speak  like  Paul,  and 
Paul  makes  great  concessions  to  Peter.      Thus  Peter 
preaches  to  the  Gentiles,  and  defends  his  conduct  in 
real  Pauline  language,  before  the  "  brethren  "  at  Jeru- 
salem (Acts,  x,  and  xi,  19). 

In  the  council  which  met  to  consider  the  question 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  183 

of  circumcising  the  Gentiles,  we  observe  especially  the 
conciliating  spirit  (Acts,  xv).  Peter  opposes  the  impo- 
sition of  "  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples  which 
neither  the  fathers  nor  they  were  able  to  bear " ;  and 
James,  "  the  pillar  "  of  Jewish  orthodoxy,  speaks  to  the 
same  effect;  while  Paul  is  represented  as  deferring 
greatly  to  the  judgment  of  "  the  pillars " ;  indeed,  all 
through  the  Acts  Paul  is  represented  as  a  faithful  Jew, 
who  visits  the  holy  city  regularly,  and  by  no  means 
condemns  the  Ceremonial  Law  in  unmeasured  terms. 
He  circumcised  Timothy  u because  of  the  Jews"  (Acts, 
xvi,  13) ;  he  purifies  himself  at  Jerusalem,  and  pays  the 
expenses  of  four  Nazarites'  offerings,  lest  he  scandalize 
"the  thousands  of  Jews"  (Acts,  xxi,  17-27).  In  short, 
Paul,  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  and  the  strong  oppo- 
nent of  Jewish  ceremonies,  in  this  book  is  made  to  "  act 
as  a  pious  Jew — nay,  his  relations  with  Jewish  Chris- 
tianity are  of  the  friendliest  sort.  Immediately  after 
his  conversion  he  joins  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem,  speak- 
ing boldly  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

"  He  receives  special  commendation  from  the  church 
of  the  metropolis  and  their  chiefs  when  he  goes  thither 
the  third  time.  At  his  fourth  visit  he  salutes  the  Je- 
rusalemite  Church,  and  at  his  fifth  he  has  a  friendly 
reception,  though  prejudices  are  strong  against  him. 
His  hostile  relations  toward  Jewish  Christians  are  passed 
over.  Titus  is  unmentioned,  though  the  Apostle  had 
a  dispute  at  Jerusalem  on  his  account  (Galatians,  i, 
3-5).  In  like  manner  Peter's  appearance  at  Antioch 
and  public  rebuke  are  unnoticed  (Galatians,  ii,  11-21). 
It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  this  silence  is  other 
than  intentional.  A  pious  observer  of  the  law  could 
not  be  a  strong  opponent  of  Judaizing  practices  without 


184  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

obvious  inconsistency.  It  is  true  that  St.  Paul  became 
as  a  Jew  to  Jews  (I  Corinthians  ix,  20) ;  but  that  ex- 
pression does  not  imply  that  he  performed  legal  duties 
without  a  pressing  necessity,  or  that  he  refrained  from 
acting  in  accordance  with  his  intense  conviction  of  the 
law's  invalidity.  It  does  not  consist  with  his  perform- 
ing or  allowing  circumcision,  as  the  book  of  Acts  rep- 
resents him,  because  he  himself  makes  circumcision 
incompatible  with  salvation  by  Christ "  (Galatians  v, 
2).  In  other  words,  although  St.  Paul  became  "  all 
things  to  all  men,"  yet  he  never  sacrified  a  principle 
in  his  lenient  treatment  of  others.  Hence,  while  the 
author  of  Acts  rests  his  statements  concerning  our  Apos- 
tle on  one  of  his  characteristics,  he  seems  to  have  gone 
too  far ;  he  used  this  only  as  a  clever  mediator  would 
use  it.* 

What,  then,  shall  we  think  of  the  authorship  of  the 
third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  ? 

First.  They  were  certainly  written  by  the  same  per- 
son, as  is  proved  not  only  by  the  opening  words  of  Acts, 
but  also  by  the  fact  that  the  diction  and  style  of  both 
are  identical. 

Secondly.  He  belongs  to  the  Pauline  party,  as  is 
evident  from  the  great  space  which  he  devotes  to  St. 
Paul's  history,  and  yet  he  was  kindly  disposed  toward 
the  Petrine  or  Jewish  party,  and  desired  the  union  of 
the  two. 

Thirdly.  He  was  probably  a  Gentile  of  Asia  Minor, 
for  "  a  special  interest  in  Asia  Minor  is  betrayed  in  the 
Acts,  inasmuch  as  apostolic  persons  of  importance  in  the 

*  Davidson's  "  Introduction,"  vol.  ii,  pp.  86,  87,  etc.,  and  Zeller's 
"  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  two  vols. 


TEE  DOCUMENTS.  185 

traditions  of  Asia  Minor  are  brought  before  ns  in  the  nar- 
rative of  the  Acts — as,  for  instance,  John  along  with  Pe- 
ter (iii,  1 ;  viii,  22) ;  the  evangelist  Philip  (vi,  5 ;  viii,  5 
est  seq% ;  xxi,  8  et  seq.)  and  Joseph  Barabbas  (i,  23) ;  and, 
further,  the  Acts  shows  itself  well  informed  respecting  the 
political  state  of  affairs  here  (and  in  Greece) ;  and,  final- 
ly, the  scene  of  the  greatest  part  of  the  narrative,  pre- 
cisely where  the  interest  is  principally  of  a  geographical 
nature  (xiii,  1 ;  xxi,  16,  the  sketch  of  Paul's  journeys) 
is  laid  in  the  regions  of  Asia  Minor."  *  "  Evervwhere 
there  is  a  wide  sympathy  with  the  Gentiles.  The  future 
of  the  Church  is  felt  to  lie  with  them.  The  author's  re- 
spect for  the  Roman  officials  and  the  Roman  government 
is  quite  Pauline.  Gallio,  the  Corinthian  town-clerk,  the 
Roman  soldiers,  the  Roman  governors,  even  Felix  and 
Agrippa,  appear  to  advantage. 

The  Roman  police  and  officers  are  kind  to  Paul, 
the  judges  are  indulgent  and  conciliatory.  One  hears 
him  gladly,  another  wishes  to  set  him  at  liberty,  a  third 
wants  a  little  bribe,  but  means  no  harm  to  Paul.f 

All  this  points  to  a  Gentile  author,  perhaps  a  native 
of  Asia  Minor.  The  date  of  the  composition  of  the 
Acts  can  not  be  precisely  ascertained,  but  it  was  written 
some  time  after  the  death  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter, 
when  the  two  parties  had  begun  to  long  for  unity  and 
peace — i.  e.,  some  time  between  the  years  75  and  125 
a.  d.  This  approximate  date  is  all  sufficient  for  our 
purpose.  Critics  may  "fight  about  more  exact  dates. 
It  remains  to  account  for  the  ascription  of  these  books 
to  Luke,  the  comparatively  obscure  companion  of  St. 

*  Zeller's  "Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  vol.  i,  p.  77. 
f  Haweis,  "  Story  of  the  Four,"  p.  132. 


186  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

Paul.  The  explanation  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  Luke  made  certain  "notes"  on  St  Paul's 
missionary  journeys  which  the  author  of  Acts  used  as 
the  basis  of  his  work.  There  are  certain  passages  in 
the  Acts  (viz.,  xvi,  10-17 ;  xx,  5-15  ;  xxi,  1-18  ;  xxvii, 
1;  xxviii,  16)  in  which  the  author  speaks  in  the  first 
person  ;  "  we  "  did  thus  and  so,  he  says,  and  that  pro- 
noun "  we "  is  supposed,  by  most  writers,  to  prove 
that  the  author  of  the  whole  book  was  a  companion 
of  St.  Paul,  but  obviously  it  can  only  prove  that 
the  author  of  the  "  we-seetions"  was  a  companion 
of  the  Apostle.  He  was  doubtless  Luke,  and  the 
author  of  Acts  adopted  and  incorporated  his  "  notes  " 
into  his  work,  which  was  ascribed  as  a  whole  to  St. 
Paul's  companion,  and  coming  from  such  a  source  the 
book  would  of  course  have  weight  with  both  the 
Pauline  and  the  Jewish  party.  M.  Kenan's  remark 
that  the  author  of  a  work  so  carefully  prepared  as  the 
Acts  evidently  is  would  hardly  have  allowed  the  "  we  " 
to  remain,  is  answered  by  the  very  fact  that  the  Acts 
is  a  work  "  well  prepared,  composed  with  reflection, 
and  even  with  art."  The  author  wished  his  book  to 
carry  with  it  the  authority  of  a  companion  of  St. 
Paul* 

It  is  hoped  that  none  will  suppose  that  the  fore- 
going sketch  of  the  evidence  of  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  books  in  question  pretends  to  be 
either  original  or  exhaustive.  Far  from  it !  I  have 
aimed  merely  to  state  briefly  the  conclusions  of  critical 
experts  which  seem  to  me  to  be  valid,  and  to  suggest 
lines  of  thought  which  the  reader  should  follow  out 

*  Renan,  "  The  Apostles,"  p.  14. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  187 

by  consulting  such  works  as  those  appended  to  or 
quoted  in  this  chapter. 

The  final  result,  then,  of  our  consideration  of  the  ori- 
gin of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament — the  conclusion 
that  will  be  assumed  as  proved  throughout  this  book — is 
that  the  ten  epistles  ascribed  to  St.  Paul,  especially  those 
to  the  Romans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians,  are  his  works ; 
that  the  Revelation  is  St.  John's ;  that  the  first  three 
Gospels  are  not  the  works  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, 
but  contain  merely  certain  "  notes "  made  by  these 
disciples  which  were  worked  over  by  the  authors  of  our 
Gospels  some  time  between  the  years  70  and  125  a.  d.  ; 
that  the  Gospel  of  John  was  written  by  a  Philonic 
philosopher,  probably  a  disciple  of  St.  John  at  Ephesus, 
some  time  between  the  beginning  and  middle  of  the 
second  century ;  that  the  Acts  was  written  by  a  Gentile 
disciple  in  Asia  Minor — perhaps*  at  Ephesus — between 
the  years  75  and  125  a.  d.,  and  was  based  on  notes  by 
St.  Luke  on  St.  Paul's  missionary  journeys. 

Now,  then,  it  may  appear  to  some  that  this  view 
completely  destroys  the  historic  value  of  the  books  in 
question.  To  which  I  would  reply :  Not  at  all ;  it 
merely  destroys  a  false  theory  of  inspiration  —  the 
verbal  theory.  It  merely  asserts  that  there  may  be 
some  chaff  mingled  with  the  wheat  which  must  be 
carefully  separated  from  the  wheat,  but  it  declares  em- 
phatically that  the  wheat  is  there*  Even  the  most 
radical  skeptics  admit  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment furnish  us  the  essential  facts  of  our  Lord's  life 
and  teachings ;  that,  notwithstanding  the  mist  of  legend 
which  obscures  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  His  form  is 
clearly  discernible  by  means  of  the  glasses  of  criticism. 

*  See  p.  403. 


188  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Thus  Prof.  Huxley  says  :  "  It  may  be  said  that  criti- 
cal skepticism  carried  to  the  length  suggested  is  historical 
Pyrrhonism ;  that  if  we  are  to  altogether  discredit  an 
ancient  or  a  modern  historian  because  he  has  assumed 
fabulous  matter  to  be  true,  it  will  be  as  well  to  give  up 
paying  attention  to  history.  It  may  be  said,  and  with 
great  justice,  that  Eginhard's  '  Life  of  Charlemagne ' 
is  none  the  less  trustworthy  because  of  the  astounding 
revelation  of  credulity,  of  lack  of  judgment,  and  even 
of  respect  for  the  eighth  commandment  which  he  has 
unconsciously  made  in  the  '  History  of  the  Translation 
of  the  Blessed  Martyrs  Marcellinus  and  Petrus.'  The 
rule  of  common  sense  is,  prima  facie,  to  trust  a  wit- 
ness in  all  matters  in  which  neither  his  self-interest,  his 
passions,  his  prejudices,  nor  that  love  of  the  marvelous, 
which  is  inherent  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  in  all 
mankind,  are  strongly  concerned  ;  and  when  they  are 
involved,  to  require  corroborative  evidence  in  exact  pro- 
portion to  the  contravention  of  probability  by  the  thing 
testified.5'  * 

M.  Penan  says  :  "  In-  nearly  all  ancient  histories, 
even  in  those  which  are  much  less  legendary  than  these 
(the  Gospels),  the  details  leave  room  for  infinite  doubt. 
When  we  have  two  accounts  of  the  same  act,  it  is  ex- 
tremely rare  that  the  two  accounts  agree.  We  may  say 
that  among  the  anecdotes,  the  speeches,  the  celebrated 
sayings  reported  by  historians,  not  one  is  rigorously 
authentic.  Were  there  stenographers  to  fix  these  fleet- 
ing words  ?  Was  there  an  annalist  always  present  to 
note  the  gestures,  the  manners,  the  feelings  of  the  actor? 
Endeavor  to  arrive  at  the  truth  in  regard  to  the  manner 

*  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  April,  1889,  p.  758. 


THE  DOCUMENTS.  189 

in  which  this  or  that  contemporaneous  event  happened, 
you  will  not  succeed.  Two  accounts  of  the  same  occur- 
rence, by  eye-witnesses,  differ  essentially.  Must  we, 
therefore,  renounce  all  the  coloring  of  narratives  and 
confine  ourselves  to  the  general  enunciation  of  facts  ? 
This  would  be  to  suppress  history.  Indeed,  I  do  be- 
lieve that  if  we  except  certain  short,  almost  mnemonic, 
axioms,  none  of  the  discourses  reported  by  Matthew  are 
literal ;  our  stenographed  trials  scarcely  are.  I  willingly 
admit  that  this  admirable  relation  of  the  Passion  con- 
tains a  multitude  of  approximations.  Should  we,  how- 
ever, write  the  life  of  Jesus,  omitting  those  teachings 
which  represent  to  us  so  vividly  the  physiognomy  of  his 
discourses,  and  confine  ourselves  to  saying,  with  Jose- 
phus  and  Tacitus,  that  "  he  was  put  to  death  by  the 
order  of  Pilate,  at  the  instigation  of  the  priests  \ "  That 
would  be,  in  my  opinion,  a  species  of  inaccuracy  worse 
than  that  to  which  we  are  exposed  by  admitting  the 
details  which  the  texts  furnish  us.  These  details  are  not 
true  to  the  letter ;  but  they  are  true  with  a  superior 
truth.  They  are  truer  than  the  naked  truth,  in  this 
sense,  that  they  are  truth  rendered  expressive  and  elo- 
quent, raised  to  the  height  of  an  idea.  To  what  would 
the  life  of  Alexander  be  reduced  were  we  to  confine 
ourselves  to  that  which  is  absolutely  certain  ?  Even  the 
traditions  which  are  in  part  erroneous  contain  a  portion 
of  truth  which  history  can  not  neglect.* 

"  We  too  often  forget,"  says  Mr.  Spencer,  "  that  not 
only  is  there  a  soul  of  goodness  in  things  evil,  but  very 
generally  also  a  soul  of  truth  in  things  erroneous.  Even 
the  absurdest  report  may,  in  nearly  every  instance,  be 

*  Renan,  "Life  of  Jesus,"  pp.  41,  42. 


190   EVOLUTION'  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

traced  to  an  actual  occurrence ;  and,  had  there  been  no 
such  actual  occurrence,  this  preposterous  misrepresenta- 
tion of  it  would  never  have  existed."  * 

By  applying  this  principle  we  may,  notwithstanding 
all  the  difficulties  raised  by  criticism,  ascertain  the  es- 
sential facts  of  our  Lord's  life  and  teaching. 

Note. — The  following  books,  among  others,  may  be  profitably 
consulted  on  the  subject  of  this  chapter : 

1.  Advocates  of  the  traditional  view  :  Westcott,  "  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament " ;  Godet's  "  Commentary  on  St.  John's  Gospel," 
three  vols.,  and  on  the  "  Gospel  of  Luke,"  two  vols. ;  Alford's 
"Greek  Testament,"  Prolegomena;  "  Present-Day  Tracts,"  No.  xvi,. 
by  Dr,  Wace  (cf.  Huxley  and  Wace  controversy,  "  Popular  Science 
Monthly  "  for  April,  May.  June,  July,  and  August,  1889) ;  McCosh's 
"  Christianity  and  Positivism,"  Lectures  viii,  ix,  x ;  Dr.  Fisher's 
"  Grounds  of  Theistic  Belief,"  chapters  vi,  vii,  viii,  xvii,  xviii ;  Dr. 
Gregory,  "  Why  Four  Gospels  ?  "  These,  I  think,  while  they  are  only 
a  few  who  have  written  in  advocacy  of  the  traditional  view  of  the 
origin  of  the  New  Testament,  are  some  of  its  ablest  advocates — Wes- 
cott  and  Godet  particularly,  and,  if  they  fail  to  convince,  so  will  the 
others. 

2.  Opponents  of  the  traditional  view :  Strauss,  "  Life  of  Jesus," 
English  translation,  vol.  i ;  Baur's  "  History  of  the  Christian  Church," 
two  vols,  and  his  other  works ;  Zeller's  "  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  two 
vols. ;  Kenan's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  "  The  Apostles,"  and  "  St.  Paul " ; 
Keim,  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  i ;  Matthew  Arnold's  "  Literature  and 
Dogma  " ;  Haweis,  "  Christ  and  Christianity — Story  of  the  Four  " ; 
Davidson's  "  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament " ;  Greg's  "  Creed 
of  Christendom  "  ;  and  "  Supernatural  Religion,"  two  vols.  But  it 
can  not  be  too  earnestly  insisted  upon  that  the  student  use  these 
writers  and  all  others  simply  as  guides  to  the  discovery  of  the  facts 
for  himself.  He  should  not  pay  too  much  attention  to  the  peculiar 
theories  of  any  writer,  but  seek  for  the  common  facts  upon  which  all 
profess  to  base  their  views.  He  should  go  to  the  early  writers  them- 
selves, should  study  the  age  and  the  circumstances  in  which  Chris- 
tianity originated,  the  characters  of  those  who  originated  it,  etc.,  and 
draw  his  own  conclusions. 

*  Spencer's  "  First  Principles,"  p.  8. 


CHAPTER  I. 

EVOLUTION   AND   MIRACLES. 

In  discussing  this  the  most  important  question  of 
the  age  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  earnestly  impress 
upon  the  reader  the  fact  that  while  the  evolutionists 
deny  the  actual  occurrence  of  many,  if  not  all,  given 
instances  of  miracles,  none  deny  the  possibility  of  such 
occurrences,  and  this  for  the  simple  reason  that  such 
denial  would  be  utterly  absurd.  Where  is  there  a  man 
who  would  dare  to  say  that  he  knows  not  only  all  the 
actualities  but  all  the  possibilities  of  nature — not  only 
what  has  happened  on  this  globe  and  all  others,  but  also 
all  that  may  happen  throughout  the  coming  future  ?  If 
there  be  such  a  one,  he  is  a  fit  subject  for  the  treat- 
ment of  a  lunatic ;  yet  the  commonest  charge  which  "  or- 
thodox "  theologians  bring  against  scientific  theologians 
who  question  the  authenticity  of  certain  narratives  of 
miracles  is  that  they  are  influenced  by  a  false  philoso- 
phy which  denies  the  possibility  of  the  occurrence  of 
(for  instance)  the  resurrection  of  a  dead  body. 

The  chief  "  argument "  against  the  views  of  Strauss, 
Baur,  Kenan  and  their  school,  which  I  heard  advanced 
in  the  theological  seminary  which  I  attended,  was  that 
they  denied  on  philosophical,  not  on  historical  grounds 
the  occurrence  of  miracles.  Strauss  and  Baur,  it  was 
said,  were  disciples  of  the   Pantheistic  Hegel,  whose 


192   EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

system  of  philosophy  denied  the  possibility  of  miracles. 
I  accepted  this  teaching  until  I  read  the  works  of  these 
authors  themselves,  when,  to  my  utter  astonishment,  I 
found  that  it  was  a  most  unjust  and  false  charge.  True, 
Strauss  and  Baur  studied  Hegel's  philosophy,  but  this 
was  not  the  real  reason  why  they  called  in  question  the 
miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible.  It  was  because  they 
found  the  historical  evidence  adducible  insufficient  to 
prove  these  alleged  events. 

M.  Eenan  distinctly  says  :  "  It  is  not  in  the  name 
of  this  or  that  philosophy,  but  in  the  name  of  constant 
experience,  that  we  banish  miracle  from  history.  We 
do  not  say,  'Miracle  is  impossible.''  We  say:  ' There 
has  been  hitherto  no  miracle  proved.  None  of  the  mir- 
acles with  which  ancient  histories  are  filled  occurred 
under  scientific  conditions.  Observation,  never  once 
contradicted,  teaches  us  that  miracles  occur  only  in 
periods  and  countries  in  which  they  are  believed  in  and 
before  persons  disposed  to  believe  in  them.  No  mir- 
acle was  ever  performed  before  an  assembly  of  men 
capable  of  establishing  the  miraculous  character  of  an 
act.  Neither  men  of  the  people  nor  men  of  the  world 
are  competent  for  that.  Great  precaution  and  a  long 
habit  of  scientific  research  are  requisite.'  "  * 

The  same  unjust  charge  is  brought  against  evolu- 
tionists who  doubt  the  occurrence  of  miracles.  It  is 
urged  that  because  they  believe  in  "  the  uniformity  of 
Nature  " — i.  e.,  that  natural  forces  are  constant  in  their 
operation— ikey  deny  the  possibility  of  miracles;  but 
the  following  quotation  from  Prof.  Huxley  certainly 
ought  to  refute  this  charge :    "  No  one  (he  says)  is  enti- 

*  Eenan's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  p.  43,  44. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  193 

tied  to  say  a  priori  that  any  given  so-called  miraculous 
event  is  impossible.     Nobody  can  presume  to  say  what 
the  order  of  Nature  must  be  :   all  that  the  widest  expe- 
rience (even  if   it   extended   over   all   past   time   and 
through  all  space)  that  events  had  happened  in  a  cer- 
tain way  could  justify,  would  be  a  proportionally  strong 
expectation  that  events  would  go  on  so  happening,  and 
the  demand  for  a  proportional  strength  of  evidence  in 
favor  of  any  assertion  that  they  had  happened  other- 
wise.    It  is  not,  therefore,  on  any  a  priori  considera- 
tions that  objections  to  the  supposed  occurrence  of  mir- 
acles can  be  based,"  but  only  on  "  the  inadequacy  of  the 
evidence  to  prove  any  given  case  of  such  occurrences.'' 
"  Natural  law,"  "  the  order  and  uniformity  of  Nature," 
and  the  like,  are,  according  to  this  eminent  scientist, 
mere  names  applied  to  certain  phenomena  ;  but  they  do 
not,  in  the  least,  explain  those  phenomena — reveal  their 
prime   causes,  etc. — and   hence  "  these   terms   have   no 
greater  value  or  cogency  than   such  as  may  attach  to 
generalizations    from   experience  of     the   past   and   to 
expectations  for   the  future,  based  upon  that  experi- 
ence." *    This  is  precisely  the  view  which  Canon  Moz- 
ley  expresses  in  the  second  of  his  "  Bampton  Lectures 
on  Miracles  "  ;  and  henca  the  charge  that  the  critics  and 
scientists  deny  the  authenticity  of   the    Bible-miracles 
because  they  are  influenced  by  a  false  philosophy,  can 
be  pardoned  only  on  the  ground  of  ignorance,  "invin- 
cible ignorance."     Those  intelligent  persons  (and  they 
are  many)  who  make  this  charge  are,  to  say  the  least, 
disingenuous. 

It  is  freely  granted,  then,  that  any  miracle  is  possi- 


Popular  Science  Monthly,"  February,  1888,  pp.  355,  356. 


191  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

ble,  but  the  real  question  is,  Has  any  miracle  ever  act. 
ually  been  wrought  f 

Evolution  replies,  not  by  asserting  the  "  uniformity 
of  natural  law,"  and  the  consequent  impossibility  of 
the  occurrence  of  miracles,  but  by  showing  how  mir- 
acles are  manufactured. 

The  primitive  man  or  savage  has  no  idea  of  an 
"order  of  nature,"  or  of  what  we  call  the  "super- 
natural," but  he  has  an  idea  of  the  ghost-iooiid.  "  In 
every  tribe,  a  death  from  time  to  time  adds  another 
ghost  to  the  many  ghosts  of  those  who  died  before. 
Originally,  these  ghosts  are  thought  of  as  close  at  hand, 
haunting  the  old  home,  lingering  near  the  place  of 
burial,  wandering  about  in  the  adjacent  bush.  Contin- 
ually accumulating,  they  form  a  surrounding  popula- 
tion; usually  invisible,  but  some  of  them  occasionally 
seen.  These  multitudinous  spirits  are  agents  ever  avail- 
able, as  conceived  antecedents  to  all  occurrences  needing 
explanation."  * 

The  Jewish  belief  that  demons  caused  disease,  etc., 
was  of  a  piece  with  this  philosophy.  "  The  primitive 
man  knew  nothing  of  a  world  in  the  modern  sense  of 
the  word.  The  conception  of  that  vast  consensus  of 
forces  which  we  call  the  world  or  universe  is  a  some- 
what late  result  of  culture  ;  it  was  reached  only  through 
ages  of  experience  and  reflection.  Such  an  idea  lay 
behind  the  horizon  of  the  primitive  man.  But,  while 
he  knew  not  the  world,  he  knew  bits  and  pieces  of  it ; 
or,  to  vary  the  expression,  he  had  his  little  world,  cha- 
otic and  fragmentary  enough,  but  full  of  dread  reality 
for  him.     He  knew  what  it  was  to  deal  from  birth 


Spencer's  "Principles  of  Sociology,"  i,  pp.  215-217. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  195 

until  death  with  powers  far  mightier  than  himself.  To 
explain  these  powers,  to  make  their  actions  in  any  wise 
intelligible,  he  had  bnt  one  available  resource  ;  and  this 
was  so  obvious  that  he  could  not  fail  to  employ  it. 
The  only  source  of  action  of  which  he  knew  anything 
lay  within  himself,  was  the  human  will,  and  in  this 
respect,  after  all,  the  philosophy  of  the  primeval  savage 
was  not  so  very  far  removed  from  that  of  the  modern 
scientific  thinker.  The  primitive  man  could  see  that 
his  own  actions  were  prompted  by  desire  and  guided 
by  intelligence,  and  he  supposed  the  same  to  be  the  case 
with  the  sun  and  the  wind,  the  frost  and  the  lightning. 
All  the  forces  of  outward  Nature,  so  far  as  they  came 
into  contact  with  his  life,  he  personified  as  great  beings 
which  were  to  be  contended  with  or  placated. 

"As  the  phenomena  of  Nature  were  generalized, 
the  deities  or  superhuman  beings  regarded  as  their 
sources  were  likewise  generalized,  until  the  conception 
of  Nature  as  a  whole  gave  rise  to  the  conception  of  a 
single  Deity  as  the  author  and  ruler  of  Nature."  * 

This  hypothesis  of  a  ghost-world  served  to  account 
for  various  diseases  and  mental  states — epilepsy,  in- 
sanity, inspiration,  divination,  exorcism,  sorcery,  etc.f 
The  priest,  the  medicine-man,  the  warrior,  the  king,  all 
great  or  extraordinary  persons,  were  supposed  to  be 
possessed  by  a  spirit ;  all  wonderful  phenomena  were 
ascribed  to  the  action  of  spirits.  The  Jews  were  no  ex- 
ception. We  find  the  teraphim,  or  tutelar  household 
gods  (Genesis,  xxxi,  19),  the  Nature-gods,  Baal  and  Mo- 
loch and  Astarte,  worshiped  among  them.      It  is  the 


*  Fiske's  "  Idea  of  God,"  pp.  63-65,  73,  74. 
f  Spencer's  "  Sociology,"  i,  chaps,  xvii,  xviii. 


196  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

plural  Elohim  who  create  the  earth,  and  whose  sons 
visit  the  daughters  of  men  (Genesis  i).  Jehovah  seems 
to  be  at  first  a  tutelar  deity,  one  of  the  Elohim  (Gene- 
sis, ii),  but  gradually  he  became  the  chief  among  the 
gods,  the  national  deity,  and  finally  the  Universal  Fa- 
ther. * 

With  such  facts  before  us,  it  is  easy  to  understand 
at  least  most  of  the  ancient  accounts  of  miracles. 

"Exorcism  and  sorcery,"  says  Mr.  Spencer,  "pass 
insensibly  into  miracles.  What  difference  exists  refers 
less  to  the  natures  of  the  effects  worked  than  to  the 
characters  of  the  agents  working  them.  If  the  marvel- 
ous results  are  ascribed  to  a  supernatural  being  at  enmity 
with  the  observers,  the  act  is  sorcery ;  but  if  ascribed 
to  a  friendly  supernatural  being,  the  marvelous  results 
are  classed  as  miracles. 

"  This  is  well  shown  in  the  contest  between  the 
Hebrew  priests  and  the  magicians  of  Egypt.  From 
Pharaoh's  point  of  view,  Aaron  was  an  enchanter 
working  by  the  help  of  a  spirit  antagonistic  to  himself ; 
while  his  own  priests  worked  by  the  help  of  his  favor- 
ing gods.  Contrariwise,  from  the  point  of  the  Israel- 
ites, the  achievements  of  their  own  leaders  were  divine 
and  those  of  their  antagonists  diabolical.  Both  be- 
lieved that  supernatural  agency  was  employed,  and  that 
the  more  powerful  supernatural  agent  had  to  be  yielded 
to."  f  These  views  passed  on  down  the  stream  of  Jew- 
ish history  to  the  time  of  Christ,  and  later,  and  hence, 
it  is  urged,  He  was  regarded  by  admiring  disciples  as 
a  Divine  Being,  and  wonderful  works  were  ascribed  to 


*  Fiske's  "  Idea  of  God,"  pp.  74-77. 

f  "  Principles  of  Sociology,"  i,  pp.  243-247. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  197 

him.  These  narratives  may  rest  on  a  narrow  basis  of 
fact ;  for,  as  we  have  seen,  u  the  absurd  est  report  may 
in  nearly  every  instance  be  traced  to  an  actual  occur- 
rence"; but  in  thus  attempting  to  trace  the  Biblical 
narratives  of  miracles  to  their  real  source  we  must  be 
extremely  careful,  and  this  is  what  such  men  as  M. 
Kenan,  Dr.  Theoclor  Keim,  and  others  are  doing.  They 
are  attempting  to  separate  the  wheat  from  the  chaff,  and 
the  present  writer  would  aspire  to  do  the  same.  Let  it 
be  remembered,  then : 

First,  that  I  do  not  deny  the  possibility  of  miracles. 
I  believe  in  the  existence  of  an  infinitely  wise  and 
powerful  Being,  who  created  and  governs  all  things,  and 
upon  this  basis  rests  the  possibility  of  miracles.  A 
miracle,  according  to  such  philosophy,  is  simply  one 
mode  in  which  the  Infinite  Spirit  manifests  himself — 
literally  an  ^mordinary  event. 

Secondly,  while  I  do  not  believe  in  the  Bible  mira- 
cles in  the  gross,  so  to  speak,  I  do  believe  that  really 
wonderful  and,  properly  speaking,  miraculous  events 
are  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  hut  those  events 
were  different  from  what  they  are  commonly  supposed 
to  he.  Mr.  J.  A.  Froude  truly  says:  "No  sane  man 
ever  raised  his  narrow  understanding  into  a  measure  of 
the  possibilities  of  the  Universe ;  nor  does  any  person 
with  any  pretensions  to  religion  disbelieve  in  miracles 
of  some  kind.  To  pray  is  to  expect  a  miracle.  When 
we  pray  for  the  recovery  of  a  sick  friend,  for  the  gift 
of  any  blessing,  or  the  removal  of  any  calamity,  we  ex- 
pect that  God  will  do  something,  by  an  act  of  his  per- 
sonal will,  which  otherwise  would  not  have  been  done ; 
that  He  will  suspend  the  ordinary  relations  of  natural 
cause  and  effect ;  and  this  is  the  very  idea  of  miracle. 


198  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

The  thing  we  pray  for  may  be  given  us,  and  no  mira- 
cle may  have  taken  place.  It  may  be  given  us  by  nat- 
ural causes,  and  would  have  occurred  whether  we  had 
prayed  or  not.  But  prayer  itself  in  its  very  essence 
implies  a  belief  in  the  possible  intervention  of  a  power 
which  is  above  Nature.  The  question  about  miracles  is 
simply  one  of  evidence."  *  To  this  I  heartily  assent. 
I  believe  in  prayer  and  Providence  (both  general  and 
special),  and  hence  I  believe  in  miracles,  or  that  God 
has  actually  wrought  ^atfraordinary  events — events,  that 
is,  which  can  not  be  properly  called  "  natural,"  as  the 
word  is  commonly  used,  and  exactly  what  I  mean  will 
soon  appear. 

As  already  stated,  Mr.  Spencer's  canon,  that  "  there 
is  generally  a  soul  of  truth  in  things  erroneous,"  is  the 
principle  which  I  shall  apply  in  this  chapter.  Indeed, 
Dr.  Keim,  among  others,  has  already  applied  this  prin- 
ciple, with  very  satisfactory  results,  to  the  Gospel  nar- 
ratives, and  I  can  not  do  better  than  give  a  synopsis  of 
his  views,  with  such  emendations  and  explanations  as  I 
deem  necessary  to  f ally  express  my  own  opinions  ;  for, 
while  I  think  Dr.  Keim  has  come  nearer  the  truth — 
especially  on  this  subject — than  Strauss,  Baur,  Renan, 
and  others,  yet  I  would  not  be  understood  as  indorsing 
all  that  he  says.     I  would  not  be  called  his  "  disciple." 

In  a  letter  to  the  author  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  Eng- 
land (Dr.  Goodwin) — a  man  of  most  liberal  instincts, 
and  one  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  much  kind  consid- 
eration— says  :  "  Keim,  like  other  German  writers,  be- 
gins with  ignoring  the  possibility  of  anything  occur- 
ring beyond  what  we  call  the  natural  order,  and  there- 

*  Froude's  "  Short  Studies,"  vol.  i,  pp.  186,  187. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  199 

fore  lie  has  to  make  some  desperate  attempt  to  account 
for  the  facts  which  he  finds  and  which  he  can  not  deny." 
In  reply  I  said,  and  now  repeat,  that  this  is  an  unjust 
charge  to  bring  against  Dr.  Keim ;  for,  wThile  he  freely 
grants,  or  rather  insists,  that  there  are  mythical  ele- 
ments in  the  Gospels — while  he  takes  a  higher,  more 
spiritual,  more  refined  view  of  the  miracles  there  re- 
corded, than  that  of  popular  orthodoxy,  yet  he  asserts 
not  simply  the  "  possibility  "  but  the  actuality  of  many 
of  those  miracles — especially  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  He  divides  the  works  of  Jesus  into  three  classes, 
viz. — 1.  Miracles  of  healing ;  2.  Raisings  of  the  dead  ; 
3.  Nature-miracles.*  In  the  third  volume  of  his  great 
work,  "  Jesus  of  Nazara"  he  devotes  ninety-seven 
pages — 152  to  219 — to  the  healings  of  the  diseased. 
After  considering  "  the  critical  difficulties  "  in  the  way 
of  accepting  these  narratives  just  as  they  stand,  he  then 
passes  to  "  the  fundamental  facts." 

First,  he  says :  "  The  acts  of  healing  of  Jesus  pre- 
suppose, in  general,  a  certain  disposition,  and  indeed  a 
spiritual  disposition,  on  the  part  of  the  sufferers.  The 
sick  eagerly  seek  him,  press  upon  him,  fall  down  before 
him,  touch  his  clothes,  beg  for  mercy,  express  faith  in 
his  power  to  help  (Matthew,  viii,  2  ;  ix,  20,  27  et  seq.  / 
xx,  30 ;  xiv,  36 ;  Luke,  viii,  45 ;  Mark,  i,  24,  34,  etc.). 
Instead  of  the  sick  themselves,  those  who  belong  to 
them — fathers,  mothers,  sons-in-law,  masters,  bearers — 
often  appeal  to  him,  or  bring  the  sick  and  place  them 
immediately  at  his  feet  (Matthew,  viii,  0 ;  ix,  2,  18, 
32 ;  Luke,  iv,  38 ;  Mark,  i,  30,  etc.).     This  faith  often 

*  Keim's  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  iv,  pp.  159,  166,  and  178  (Eng- 
lish translation). 


200  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

betrays  its  uncommon  strength  (Matthew,  viii,  5-13 ; 
Luke,  vii,  1  et  seq.).  Sometimes  the  faith  is  not  men- 
tioned (e.  g.,  Matthew,  viii,  11 ;  xii,  10),  but  the  omis- 
sion is  often  due  to  the  rapidity  of  the  narrative,  or  the 
faith  is  taken  for  granted.  .  .  .  The  cures  at  a  distance 
(Matthew,  viii,  5-13 ;  Luke,  vii,  1  et  seq.,  etc.)  totally 
shut  out,  of  course,  the  personal  contact  of  Jesus  with 
the  sick — a  contact  w7hich  in  other  cases  is  the  rule. 
Cures  at  a  distance  do  not  in  any  way  imply  the  exer- 
cise of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  sick.  Cures  at  a  distance 
cut  away  all  natural  or  half-natural  explanations  of  the 
results.  Nevertheless,  it  is  not  therefore  necessary  to 
believe  in  the  purely  miraculous  '  healing  of  (for  in- 
stance) the  centurion's  son  or  servant.'  Doubtless  the 
father  had  not  taken  the  journey  from  Capernaum  to 
Jesus  without  the  knowledge  and  faith  of  the  son  •  re- 
storative power  already  lay  in  this  highly  wrought  faith 
and  expectation."  The  remark  of  "  Matthew  "  (viii,  13), 
"  His  servant  was  healed  in  the  self -same  hour"  that  the 
command  ("  Go  thy  way,"  etc.)  was  given,  may  be  a 
slight  exaggeration.  But  the  healing  of  those  persons 
wdio  were  said  to  have  been  "  possessed  of  devils  " — i.  e., 
those  who  were  diseased  in  mind  and  body  * — seems  to 
present  greater  difficulties  to  this  view\  but  "if  faith  on 
the  part  of  the  sufferer  "  was  not  possible  in  these  cases, 
"  faith  on  the  part  of  the  sufferer's  friends  "  (says  our 
author)  "  is  not  necessarily  excluded  ;  and  in  the  narra- 
tive of  the  lunatic  this  faith  is  expressly  represented  as 
efficacious  (Matthew,  xviii,  14-21 ;  Mark,  ix,  23).  But 
when  this  faith  is  altogether  wanting,  as  in  the  case  of 


*  See  Dr.  White's  admirable  articles  in  "  The  Popular  Science 
Monthly  "  for  February  and  March,  1889. 


EVOLFTIOX  AXD  MIRACLES.  201 

the  Gadarenes  (Mark,  v,  1  et  seq. ;  Luke,  viii,  26-39 ; 
Matthew,  viii,  28-34),  and  of  the  possessed  man  of  Ca- 
pernaum (Mark,  i,  21-28  ;  Luke,  iv,  33),  instead  of  it,  a 
spiritual  excitement  on  the  part  of  the  sufferers  them- 
selves is  always  assumed,  and  one  might  say  this  was  the 
case  here  almost  more  visibly  than  with  other  sick  per- 
sons. There  is  an  anxiety,  an  alarm  which  seizes  these 
persons  as  soon  as  they  come  in  contact  with  Jesus. 
They  have  a  mental  perception  of  his  greatness,  and 
they  recoil  from  him.  But  in  the  very  act  of  recoil 
they  are  attracted ;  they  cry  to  him  involuntarily ;  they 
would  be  freed  of  his  presence,  would  be  alone,  and  yet 
can  not  conceal  the  interest  with  which  they  regard 
him ;  they  beseech  their  tormentor  to  leave  them,  and 
yet  they  recognize  his  power,  his  just  authority ;  they 
straggle  in  their  beclouded  consciousness  to  become  clear 
as  to  his  nature,  and  their  position  in  relation  to  him, 
and  then,  with  or  without  protest,  yield  themselves  up 
to  the  menace  or  command  which  he  directs  toward 
them.  Though  all  these  movements  of  mind  are  in  the 
sources  ascribed  immediately  to  the  foreign  '  spirit '  in 
the  man,  and  not  to  the  man  himself,  this  can  not  hin- 
der us  in  the  present  day  from  finding  room  for  more 
accommodated  views,  and — what  is  of  most  importance 
— from  establishing  the  fact  that  the  traces  of  spiritual 
processes  in  Jesus'  works  of  healing  extend  as  far  as  the 
province  in  which  the  result  appears  to  rest  upon  the 
simple  activity  of  Jesus,  the  simple  passivity  of  the  man 
healed.1''  If  any  one  fancy  that  such  mental  efforts  as 
Dr.  Keim  here  attributes  to  "the  possessed"  were  im- 
possible, he  would  perhaps  have  his  doubts  removed  by 
a  visit  to  some  asylum  for  the  insane,  and  by  a  study  of 
its  phenomena.    On  one  occasion,  while  visiting  such  an 


202  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

asylum,  the  inmate  whom  my  friend  and  I  were  calling 
to  see,  and  who  had  been  suffering  for  years  from  de- 
mentia, immediately  recognized  my  friend  (her  uncle), 
whom  she  had  not  seen  for  nineteen  years.  And,  be- 
sides, she  recalled  other  persons  and  events  in  a  most 
striking  manner,  while  a  moment  afterward  her  mind 
wandered  again  into  utter  absurdities  and  nonsense. 
Surely  she  was  as  incapable  of  the  mental  processes 
ascribed  by  Keim  to  the  possessed  as  any  one  could  be, 
and  yet  she  manifested  them.  But  it  would  doubtless 
be  urged  :  "  There  are  instances  of  the  cure  of  incurable 
diseases  recorded  in  the  Gospel,  such  as  leprosy.*  What 
shall  we  say  of  these  ? " 

The  case  of  the  healing  of  the  leper,  mentioned  by 
all  three  evangelists  (Matthew,  viii,  1-4;  Luke,  v,  12- 
16 ;  Mark,  i,  40-45),  Dr.  Keim  handles  in  a  masterly 
manner.  He  frankly  admits  that  "  the  thrice-given  re- 
port is  not  to  be  put  aside  as  absolutely  unhistorical," 
but  he  holds  that  "the  cleansing  which  the  sick  man 
asked  for  may  originally  have  been  nothing  more  than 
the  declaration  of  cleanliness,  which  in  the  very  same 
words  was  reserved  to  the  priests  by  the  legislation  of 
Moses  (Leviticus,  xiii,  6, 17,  etc.),  and  the  materializing 
mythical  spirit,  insatiable  and  prone  to  misconception, 
was  only  too  near  at  hand  to  add  this  case  to  the  many 
real  works  of  healing,  and  to  convert  the  declaration 
into  an  actual  cleansing."  f 

It  would  be  impossible  to  convey  in  a  short  and  im- 
perfect synopsis  of  his  views  the  impression  which  Dr. 
Keim's  able  argument  makes  on  one's  mind,  and  it  is 

*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Leprosy." 
f  Keim's  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  iii,  pp.  152-249. 


EVOLUTION'  AND  MIRACLES.  203 

hoped  that  the  reader  will  consult  the  work  itself,  even 
if  he  has  to  borrow  it.  In  thus  adopting  Dr.  Keim's 
opinion  that  the  cures  which  Jesus  wrought  were 
"mind-cures"  or  "faith-healings"  I  would  not  be  un- 
derstood as  indorsing  all  modern  instances  of  such  cures, 
though  I  do  think  that  the  manner  in  which  certain 
people  handle  these  cures  is  most  unpardonable  and  un- 
philosophical.  No  really  intelligent  and  educated  per- 
son pretends  to  know  what  or  how  great  influence  the 
mind  may  have  on  the  body,  and  there  are  well-authen- 
ticated cases  of  truly  wonderful  cures  which  deserve 
more  thorough  and  careful  consideration  than  has  yet 
been  given  them.  I  know  a  most  estimable  woman — 
Miss  Jennie  Smith,  missionary  on  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  Eailroad — who  was  bedfast  for  years,  and  was 
cured  in  a  most  wonderful  manner — as  she  believed,  by 
"faith."  I  have  heard  her  story  from  her  own  lips,  and 
also  read  the  book  which  gives  a  full  account  of  her  re- 
covery, including  the  testimonial  of  her  physician  to 
the  effect  that  u  a  psychical  iiplift " — supernaturally  or 
naturally,  what  matter  about  words  ? — was  the  cause  of 
her  cure,  and  I  think  whatever  allowances  may  be  made 
for  unconscious  additions,  etc.,  yet  her  cure  was  quite  as 
wonderful  as  some,  at  least,  of  the  healings  recorded  in 
the  Bible.* 

"  The  chronicles  of  psychical  healing  as  a  phenom- 
enon," says  an  able  and  brilliant  writer  on  this  subject, 
"  are  a  fascinating  study  that  may  be  pursued  with  both 
pleasure  and  profit,  for  the  practice  may  easily  be  traced 
through  the  long  epochs  of  authentic  record  to  the  time 


*  See   "  From   Baca  to   Beulah,"   by  Jennie  Smith.     Garrigues 
Bros.,  COS  Arch  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
10 


204  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

when  '  history  and  legend,  meeting  with  a  kiss,'  lure 
the  eager  search  into  the  myths  and  magic  of  remote 
antiquity.  Medical  books  are  filled  with  descriptions 
of  unhoped-for,  sudden,  and  prodigious  cures,  that 
would  easily  pass  for  miracles ;  the  annals  of  prayer  and 
faith-cure  abound  with  well-attested  cases ;  such  cures 
frequently  occurred  during  the  earlier  years  of  many 
Christian  sects,  as  the  Waldenses,  Moravians,  Huguenots, 
Covenanters,  Quakers,  Baptists,  and  Methodists ;  Jesus 
and  his  Apostles  performed  miracles  of  healing;  the 
sacred  writings  of  all  nations  refer  to  mental  healing 
as  a  common  practice ;  and  mythology  and  folk-lore 
afford  ground  for  a  belief  that,  in  prehistoric  times, 
mankind  may  have  been  acquainted  with  no  other  mode 
of  restoring  the  sick  to  health."  * 

In  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  his  valuable  work  on 
"Nature  and  the  Supernatural,"  it  is  well  known  the 
late  Dr.  Horace  Bushnell  maintains  that  "miracles  and 
spiritual  gifts  are  not  discontinued"  even  now,  and 
gives  cases  of  wonderful  cures  which  it  is  much  easier 
to  sneer  at  than  to  explain.  It  is  customary  for  a  cer- 
tain class  of  persons,  on  the  one  hand,  to  scoff  at  all 
such  records  of  extraordinary  and  inexplicable  events, 
and,  on  the  other,  to  accept  implicitly  the  cures  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible  as  real  miracles.  In  other  words, 
they  attempt  to  stake  off  the  Bible  and  the  events  it 
records  from  all  other  books  and  events — to  make  it  a 
book  sui  generis — but  this  is  impossible  in  our  day. 
The  Bible   must  submit  to  comparison  and  criticism  ; 


*  "  Facts  and  Fictions  of  Mental  Healing,"  by  Charles  M.  Bar- 
rows; Carter  &  Karrick,  Boston — an  admirable  and  philosophic  little 
book ;  and  cf .  Dr.  D.  H.  Tuke's  able  treatise  on  "  The  Influence  of 
the  Mind  upon  the  Body,"  especially  Part  IV. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  205 

and  the  events  it  records,  however  wonderful,  must  be 
shown  to  have,  at  least,  a  basis  in  fact  and  reason ;  they 
must  be  shown  to  be  nearly  allied  to,  if  not  of  a  piece 
with,  other  well-attested  facts.  In  short,  the  Bible  must 
be  confirmed  and  illustrated  by  history  and  science,  if 
thinking  people  are  to  accept  it.  But  I  hear  some  one 
say,  "This  is  Kationalism."  True,  and  it  is  because 
the  author  is  firmly  convinced  that  "the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints"  must  be  shown  to  be  rational 
that  he  writes  on  this  great  subject.  In  thus  attempt- 
ing to  give  "  a  rational "  account  of  Christ's  life  and 
teachings  we  by  no  means  deny  the  Divine  element  in 
that  life.  In  attempting  to  explain  his  works  of  heal- 
ing according  to  the  well- recognized  laws  which  govern 
the  mind  and  body,  we  do  not  deny  the  Divine  element 
in  those  cures ;  we  leave  untouched  the  profound  ques- 
tion as  to  the  prime  origin  and  cure  of  all  disease. 
As  Miss  Jennie  Smith's  doctor  says  :  "  God  himself  is 
doubtless  potentially  in  the  means  used.  I  myself  "  (he 
adds),  "in  common  with  not  a  few  students  of  Nature, 
prominent  among  whom  is  to  be  named  Dr.  Lionel 
Beale,  fully  accept  this  view,  recognizing  the  truth 
expressed  in  the  words  of  that  eminent  authority  in 
science,  that  life,  always  and  everywhere,  is  ultimately 
'  the  operation  of  immanent  Deity]  *  and  that  in  the 
use  of  proper  means  we  have  simply  acted  in  the  divine 
order,  yet  by  no  means  limiting  the  Deity  himself."  f 
In  other  words,  those  who  call  others  "rationalists" 
and  "  enemies  of  the  faith,"  because  they  use  their  God- 

*  According  to  the  chapter  on  "  God  and  Nature"  (Part  I),  I  hold, 
with  many  other  students  of  Nature,  that  not  only  Life,  but  all  the 
operations  of  Nature,  are  due  to  "  immanent  Deity." 

f  "  From  Baca  to  Beulah,"  pp.  214,  215. 


206  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

given  reason  and  conscience  in  the  study  of  the  Bible 
narratives  of  wonderful  cures,  have  yet  to  learn  what  is 
meant  by  the  Apostle  when  he  says,  "  In  Him  we 
live  and  move  and  have  our  being."  If  so,  then  all 
healing  is  ultimately  due  to  this  Power,  and  it  is  not 
atheism  or  an  anti-religious  spirit  which  seeks  to  explain 
these  phenomena  of  Jewish  and  Christian  history.  It 
may  be  well  to  add  a  couple  of  instances  of  remarkable 
cures — one  a  mental  healing  and  the  other  a  faith-cure 
— which  may  serve  merely  to  illustrate  the  view  of  the 
New  Testament  miracles  just  set  forth.  Mr.  Barrows 
tells  us  that  Dr.  Charles  F.  Taylor,  whose  reputation  is 
well  known  to  medical  men,  in  a  paper  on  "  Bodily 
Conditions  as  Eelated  to  Mental  States,"  read  before 
the  New  York  Academy  of  Science  in  1879,  gave  many 
instances  of  mental  cures,  among  which  was  the  follow- 
ing: 

A  lady  came  to  Dr.  Taylor  with  a  lame  shoulder, 
which  was  drawn  forcibly  upward,  firmly  fixed  in  that 
position  and  very  sensitive  to  handling.  She  explained 
that  several  years  before,  while  reaching  up  to  turn  the 
slat  of  the  shutters,  she  had  felt  a  sharp  pain  in  the 
shoulder,  and  since  that  time  had  fteen  unable  to  move 
it.  Supposing  that  it  might  be  a  spasm,  and  not  wish- 
ing to  treat  it  himself,  he  sent  her  to  a  brother  physician, 
who  gave  her  some  liniments,  and,  when  these  failed  to 
have  the  desired  effect,  a  professional  "  robber  "  was 
sent  her,  who  used  a  great  deal  of  disagreeable,  violent, 
and  painful  manipulation.  A  year  from  her  first  visit, 
therefore,  she  reappeared  before  Dr.  Taylor  in  a  very 
sad  plight.  He  immediately  sought  out  his  fellow-phy- 
sician, who  had  thus  far  treated  the  case,  and  together 
they  made  an  examination.     They  found  the  large  pec- 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  207 

toral  (breast)  muscle  shortened  and  enlarged  to  twice  its 
natural  size,  and  the  arm  so  firmly  bound  down  that  it 
was  with  difficulty  that  she  got  her  clothing  on.  The 
two  surgeons  etherized  the  patient  and  made  an  unsuc- 
cessful attempt  to  stretch  the  contracted  muscle  by 
mechanical  force.  The  lady  was  so  prostrated  by  the 
operation  that  she  was  obliged  to  remain  in  bed  for  over 
a  month.  Then  a  consultation  was  held  at  her  house, 
in  Brooklyn,  and,  when  the  physicians  had  explained 
what  they  had  come  for,  she  got  up,  and,  to  their  utter 
astonishment,  the  muscles  completely  relaxed,  and  the 
arm  was  perfectly  free  to  move  in  any  direction. 

Three  years  later  the  patient's  other  arm  became 
affected  in  the  same  way,  and  Dr.  Taylor,  supposing 
the  cure  to  have  resulted  from  the  mechanical  stretch- 
ing, repeated  the  operation  in  this  case,  and  the  same 
result  followed  as  in  the  first  instance.  The  case  was 
accordingly  dismissed  as  cured ;  but  a  month  later  the 
doctor  was  requested  to  visit  her,  and  found  that  no 
permanent  benefit  had  been  received,  and  the  muscles 
and  shoulder  had  relapsed  into  the  same  condition  as 
before.  After  striving  for  weeks  to  find  remedies  for 
a  state  of  things  he  could  not  comprehend,  he  finally 
took  the  hint  which  circumstances  forced  upon  him, 
and  administered  laughing-gas  to  his  patient !  This 
was  administered  twice,  with  an  interval  of  four  days, 
when  the  muscles  relaxed,  motion  was  restored  to  the 
shoulder-joint,  and  there  has  been  no  recurrence  of  the 
condition  described.* 

This  was  a  clear  case  of  an  abnormal  bodily  condi- 

*  Barrows,  "  Facts  and  Fictions  of  Mental  Healing,"  pp.  134- 
143,  etc. 


208  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

tion  produced  by  a  mental  disorder,  and  its  cure  by  so 
simple  a  remedy  reminds  us  of  the  New  Testament 
accounts  of  healing  paralytics,  the  man  with  the  with- 
ered hand  (Luke,  vi,  6-11,  etc.),  the  blind,  etc.,  by  a 
mere  word  or  the  application  of  clay,  and  so  on. 

Dr.  Tuke  gives  numerous  instances  which  furnish 
in  all  essentials  even  better  parallels  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment healings  than  this  does,  and  it  is  earnestly  hoped 
that  the  reader  may  consider  such  cases  more  carefully 
and  candidly  than  is  generally  done. 

Again,  Dr.  Bushnell,  in  the  work  referred  to,  after 
alluding  to  the  wonders  of  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin 
Martyr,  Athenagoras,  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  and 
other  church  fathers,  to  the  dreams  of  Huss,  the  proph- 
esyings  of  Luther,  and  Fox,  and  Archbishop  Usher, 
the  ecstasies  of  Xavier,  etc.,  discusses  the  miracles  of 
our  own  time,  among  which  was  the  case  of  an  Eng- 
lish gentleman,  whose  faith  in  the  gift  of  healing  had 
been  established  by  his  own  personal  experience  of  it. 
"  He  was  a  man  whose  connections  and  culture,  whose 
well-formed,  tall,  and  robust- looking  person,  whose 
beautifully  simple  and  humble  manners,  and  whose 
blameless,  universally  respected  life  among  strangers 
not  of  the  same  faith,  were  so  many  conspiring  tokens 
winning  him  a  character  of  confidence  that  excluded 
any  rational  distrust  of  his  representations."  He  had 
been  an  invalid  for  a  long  time,  with  only  a  slender 
hope  of  recovery,  but  after  his  conversion  "  it  became 
a  question  with  him  whether,  as  he  had  been  healed 
spiritually,  he  ought  not  also  to  expect  and  receive  the 
healing  of  his  body  by  the  same  faith.  After  a  hard 
struggle  of  mind  he  was  able,  dismissing  all  his  pre- 
scribed remedies,  to  throw  himself  on  God,  and  was 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  209 

immediately  and  permanently  made  whole.     At  length 
one  of  his  children  he  had  with  him,  away  from  home, 
was  taken  ill  with  scarlet  fever.     '  And  now  the  ques- 
tion was,'  said  the  father,  '  what  was  to  be  done  ?    The 
Lord  had  indeed  healed  my  own  sickness,  but  would 
he  heal  my  son  ? '     I  conferred  with  a  brother  in  the 
Lord,  who,  having  no  faith  in  Christ's  healing  power, 
urged  me  to  send  immediately  for  the  doctor,  and  dis- 
patched his  groom  on  horseback  to  fetch  him.     Before 
the  doctor  arrived,  my  mind  was  filled  with  revelation 
on  the  subject.     I  saw  I  had  fallen  into  a  .snare,  by 
turning  away  from  the  Lord's  healing  hand,  to  lean  on 
medical  skill.     The  doctor  arrived.     My  son,  he  said, 
was  suffering  from  a  scarlet  fever,  and  medicine  should 
be  sent  for  immediately.     When  he  was  gone,  I  called 
the  nurse  and  told  her  to  take  the  child  into  the  nursery 
and  lay  him  on  the  bed.     I  then  fell  on  my  knees,  con- 
fessing the  sin  I  had  committed  against  the  Lord's  heal- 
ing power.     I  also  prayed  most  earnestly  that  it  would 
please  my  Heavenly  Father  to  forgive  my  sin,  and  to 
show  that  he  forgave  it  by  causing  the  fever  to  be  re- 
buked.    I  received  a  mighty  conviction  that  my  prayer 
was  heard,  and  I  arose  and  went  to  the  nursery,  and  on 
opening  the  door,   to  my  astonishment,  the   boy  was 
sitting  up  in  his  bed,  and  on  seeing  me,  cried  out, i  I  am 
quite  well,  and  want  to  have  my  dinner.'     In  an  hour 
he  was  dressed  and  well,  and  eating  his  dinner.     Next 
morning  the  doctor  came  and  was  amazed  to  find  the 
boy  well,  but  said,  after  feeling  his  pulse, '  Yes,  the  fever 
is  gone.'  "  *     This  is  only  one  of    several  remarkable 
cures  which  Dr.  Bushnell  cites,  but  it  must  suffice. 


*  Bushnell's  "  Xature  and  the  Supernatural,"  pp.  479-481. 


210  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

Two  thoughts  are  suggested  by  these  facts  :  First, 
a  most  effectual  way  of  arousing  prejudice  against  such 
views  as  are  here  advocated  is  to  say,  "  Oh,  this  is 
classing  Christ  with  modern  physicians  and  miracle- 
mongers."  And  some  critic,  aiming  at  temporary 
success  in  argument,  rather  than  at  the  truth,  will 
doubtless  resort  to  this  method  of  refuting  an  aron- 
ment  which  it  is  difficult  to  answer.  Hence,  I  antici- 
pate his  "  refutation  "  by  saying,  I  make  no  classifica- 
tion whatever,  hut  merely  cite  facts  of  history  and  ash 
that  they  may  be  considered.  I  would  be  the  last  one 
to  class  our  Lord  with  inferior  persons,  but  I  do  believe 
that  the  cures  he  wrought  may  be  illustrated  and  con- 
firmed by  those  which  have  been  performed  by  others. 
Where  is  the  atheism  or  infidelity  in  holding  that  all 
disease  is  healed  by  the  same  Power — probably  a 
spiritual  force  not  generally  recognized — and  that  the 
cures  wrought  by  the  Saviour  were,  therefore,  only 
extraordinary  examples  of  what  commonly  happens  f 
There  is  no  infidelity  in  such  a  view ;  but  granting 
that  the  so-called  "  mental  healings ?1  and  "  faith-cures  " 
of  ancient  and  modern  times  have  been  the  result  of 
the  operation  of  a  Spiritual  Power  not  usually  recog- 
nized, it  becomes  more  than  probable  that  some  Great 
Physician  should  arise  who,  relying  on  such  means  of 
healing,  would  perform  wonderful  cures. 

Secondly,  it  may  be  said  that  such  men  as  that  one 
referred  to  by  Dr.  Bushnell  are  religious  fanatics,  and 
hence  there  is  no  parallel  between  his  cure  and  that  of 
the  blind,  the  lame,  the  deaf,  etc.,  spoken  of  in  the 
New  Testament.  But  what  proof  have  we  that  those 
who  were  healed  by  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  were  not 
religious  enthusiasts?     They  were  probably  just  such 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  211 

persons — Mary  Magdalene,  for  instance,  certainly  was. 
And  it  is  vain  to  point  to  the  narratives  of  the  said 
cures  and  to  attempt  to  show  from  them  that  there  is 
no  parallel  between  modern  faith-cures  and  New  Testa- 
ment healings,  since  we  know  not  how  much  those  nar- 
ratives have  been  embellished  by  later  hands.  The  fun- 
damental facts,  tli en,  which  gave  rise  to  all  the  stories 
about  Christ's  performing  miracles  were  certain  mental 
and  spiritual  healings,  to  which  were  gradually  added 
other  and  more  wonderful  events.  Those  events  were 
of  two  kinds — raisings  of  the  dead  and  Nature-miracles. 
Among  the  former  Dr.  Keim  considers  the  raising 
of  Jairus's  daughter,*  and  the  raising  of  the  widow  of 
.Nam's  son.-f-  In  explanation  of  the  first  miracle  he 
adopts  the  rationalists'  view  that  the  words  of  Jesus, 
"  The  maid  is  not  dead  but  sleepeth,"  are  literally  true, 
and  hence  she  was  merely  aroused  from  "  a  lethargic 
faintness,"  or  swoon,  by  Jesus'  vigorous  taking  hold 
and  lifting  up  of  the  patient.  This  fact  was  seized 
upon  by  the  writer  as  a  repetition  of  the  miracles  per- 
formed by  Elijah  and  Elisha  (I  Kings,  xvii,  17,  and  II 
Kings,  iv,  8  et  seq.),  and  wrought  out  in  its  present 
form.  At  any  rate,  the  verbal  utterance  of  Jesus  ("  The 
maid  is  not  dead"  etc.),  Keim  emphatically  insists, 
"  mocks  every  attempt  to  establish  the  decisively  mirac- 
ulous view."  But  he  rejects  in  toto  the  story  of  the 
raising  of  the  widow  of  Nain's  son,  who,  he  thinks, 
"was  really  dead."  "  The  genuine  histories"  (lie  says) 
"  of  the  life  of  Jesus  do  not  compel  us  to  have  this  belief 
(that  the  dead  was  really  revived),  but  only  the  later 
authors.     Nor  should  we  overlook  the  fact  that  it  is 

*  Matthew,  ix,  18-26,  etc.  f  Luke,  vii,  11-17. 


212  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

only  one  later  author  who  is  acquainted  with  this  inci- 
dent. This  miracle,  known  (according  to  the  narra- 
tives) throughout  all  Judea,  remained  entirely  hidden 
from  the  other  Evangelists,  who,  if  they  had  known  or 
believed  it,  would  have  eagerly  registered  it  as  an  occur- 
rence of  the  first  importance."  Hence  we  are  to  regard 
this  as  simply  a  legend  which  grew  up  later  and  was 
based,  probably,  on  Elijah's  raising  the  woman  of  Zare- 
phath's  son.*  In  a  similar  way  our  author  disposes  of 
the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  "This  enrichment,"  he 
says,  "  is  no  history,  but  the  destruction  of  history." 

"  These  journeys  (of  John's  Gospel),  these  deeds 
and  miracles,  these  addresses,  these  murderous  attacks, 
are  unhistorical."  He  thinks  that  the  author  of  John's 
Gospel  merely  desired  to  set  forth  Jesus  as  the  Besur- 
rection  and  the  Life,  and  hence  chose  the  parable  of 
the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  as  the  basis  of  ^picture- 
miracle  which  shadowed  forth  this  truth. f  At  any  rate, 
owing  to  the  uncertain  authorship  of  this  Gospel,  and 
to  the  fact  that  this  gigantic  miracle  was  not  known  to 
the  earlier  Evangelists,  we  dare  not  insist  upon  its  real- 
ity. We  come  now  to  the  great  nature-miracles  as- 
cribed to  Jesus,  namely,  the  stilling  of  the  storm  on 
the  Lake  of  Galilee,^:  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand 
and  the  five  thousand  by  multiplying  the  loaves,*  the 
turning  the  water  into  wine  at  Cana  II  and  the  draught 
of  fishes.A 

As  to  the  first  miracle,  Keim  thinks  that  a  storm 
may  have  occurred  while  the  disciples  were  crossing  the 

*  Keim's  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  iv,  pp.  149-178. 
f  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  v,  pp.  72-87. 
%  Luke,  viii,  22-25,  etc.  #  Luke,  ix,  10-17. 

1  John,  ii,  1-11.  a  Matthew,  iv,  18,  etc. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  213 

lake,  with  Jesus  asleep  in  the  ship,  and  that  his  "  action 
consisted  merely  in  the  interposition  of  a  purely  human 
power,  in  his  pious  courage,  imparting  calm  and  decis- 
ion, or  in  a  petition  to  God  for  help,  in  answer  to  which 
help  was  given  or  appeared  to  he  given." 

The  latter  view  is  doubtless  the  true  one. 

"  The  regal  miracle  "  of  feeding  the  four  thousand 
or  five  thousand  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes,  our  au- 
thor thinks,  "  did  not  take  place  in  a  literal  sense,  and,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  storm,  a  higher  interpretation  sponta- 
neously forces  itself  upon  every  one.  We  think  of  the 
spiritual  bread  (John,  vi)  which  Jesus  dispenses  and 
which  he  distributes  by  means  of  his  Apostles,  making 
even  the  deserts  green  and  pleasant,  and  with  one  loaf 
satisfying  a  thousand  men,  as  five  loaves  did  five  thou- 
sand. We  think  of  the  heavenly  treasure  unexhausted 
by  distribution — so  that  to  each  of  the  twelve  Apostles, 
the  missionary  successors  of  Jesus,  there  remains  in  the 
twelve  baskets  more  for  giving  away  than  had  at  first 
been  at  the  disposal  of  Jesus  and  themselves."  Keim 
speaks  favorably  of  the  view  of  Paulus  and  Ewald  that 
in  the  wilderness,  Jesus,  having  first  by  his  words  lifted 
the  minds  of  his  hearers  above  earthly  necessities, 
evoked  from  those  who  were  prepared  to  make  sacri- 
fices a  grand  exhibition  of  hospitable  brotherly  love — 
men  who  possessed  the  means  helped  those  who  were 
in  need.*  Thus  every  want  was  supplied  with  limited 
resources,  first  the  spiritual  wants,  but  next  also  the 
physical.  "  Such  a  basis,"  he  adds,  "  is  not  to  be  de- 
nied."    He  thinks  that  our  Lord's  words  to  Peter  and 


*  Ewald,  "History  of  Israel,"  vol.  vi,    pp.  249-252    (English 
translation). 


214  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Andrew,  "  Follow  me  and  I  will  make  you  fishers  of 
men  "  (Matthew,  iv,  19),  gave  rise  to  the  tradition  about 
the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes.  The  story  is  there- 
fore a  "  mere  picture  of  an  utterance  of  Jesus  drawn 
for  the  eyes  of  babes  "  ;  it  is  due  to  a  misunderstanding 
of  this  reported  utterance. 

The  miracle  of  turning  water  into  wine  at  Cana  is 
disposed  of  thus :  "  In  the  case  of  so  pronounced  and 
unattested  miracle  it  is  useless  to  attempt  to  lay  hold  of 
a  definite  historical  fact.  The  Evangelist  has  portrayed 
an  utterance  of  Jesus  in  a  picture,  and  has  visibly  sig- 
nalized the  debut  of  Jesus  in  that  utterance  and  picture. 

According  to  the  earlier  Gospels,  Jesus  certainly 
had  spoken  words  appropriate  to  this  narrative :  "  The 
sons  of  the  bride-chamber  can  not  mourn  so  long  as  the 
bridegroom  is  with  them,"  and  "  new  wine  is  not  put 
into  old  wine-skins,  which  tear,  but  into  new  ones,  and 
both  are  preserved"  (Matthew,  ix,  14-17). 

"  From  this  and  from  the  actual  joyous  and  friendly 
feasts  which  Jesus  held  with  his  discijiles  and  with  the 
publicans,  could  easily  be  derived  the  picture  of  a 
wedding  festival  at  which  Jesus  was,  naturally,  not  the 
bridegroom,  but  the  bringer  of  joy  for  the  guests  and 
particularly  for  his  disciples,  and  thus  in  a  higher  style 
the  bridegroom."  *  If,  now,  these  explanations  seem 
far-fetched  and  irrational,  I  would  ask  the  reader  to  re- 
member two  facts : 

1.  This  is  but  a  most  imperfect  exposition  of  Dr. 
Keim's  views,  and  a  careful  study  of  his  great  work 
would  effectually  remove  any  such  impression. 

2.  It  must  not   be   forgotten   that  Eastern   people 

*  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  iv5  pp.  203-210. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  215 

were  endowed  with  especially  vivid  imaginations,  while 
the  "Gospel  of  John"  is  peculiarly  a  doctrinal  work 
(see  Introduction)  ;  and  therefore  the  author's  concep- 
tion may  have  been  fitted  into  a  material  framework 
somewhat  as  St.  John  chose  the  earthly  Jerusalem  as 
the  framework  of  his  vision  of  the  new  Jerusalem 
(Revelation,  xxi). 

At  any  rate,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  fore- 
going explanation  of  the  Christian  miracles,  it  must  be 
acknowledged,  from  what  has  been  said  in  the  intro- 
ductory chapter,  that  these  miracles,  especially  the  Na- 
ture-miracles and  the  raisings  of  the  dead,  are  not  sub- 
stantiated by  evidence  which  any  body  of  scientific  men, 
who  were  unbiased  by  preconceived  theories,  would  ac- 
cept. We  do  not  and  can  not  know  when  or  by  whom 
the  narratives  of  these  miracles  were  composed,  and 
hence  we  must  explain  them  as  best  we  can.  It  has 
been  said,  ever  since  the  time  of  Hume,  that  "it  is 
more  probable  that  men  should  deceive  or  be  deceived 
than  it  is  that  such  miracles  as  those  in  question  should 
be  wrought,"  and  this  is  true.  It  may  also  be  said  that, 
considering  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  almost  any  ex- 
planation of  the  miracles  is  more  probable  than  that 
which  attempts  to  accept  them  just  as  they  stand  re- 
corded. 

This,  then,  is  the  viewT  which  seems  to  be  the  most 
probable  :  Jesus  was  a  great  Prophet,  and,  as*  such,  it 
was  quite  natural  that  he  should  have  wrought  miracles 
of  healing.  "  It  would  have  been  a  miracle  if  he  had 
not  wrought  miracles  "  among  such  religious  enthusiasts 
as  the  Jews  were,  and  at  the  time  when  the  national 
expectation  of  the  Messiah  was  at  its  height.  These 
faith-cures  and   mind-cures  formed  the  basis  of  many 


216  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

and  various  stories,  more  or  less  exaggerated,  which 
gradually  grew  up  around  the  life  of  this  wonderful 
Person,  and  were  incorporated  in  our  "  Gospels." 
"  But,"  it  would  be  urged  right  here,  "  the  interval 
between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  formation  of  such 
fabulous  stories  is  not  long  enough  for  the  growth  of 
these  myths."  *  Now,  we  will  not  stop  to  discuss  the 
question  how  long  is  that  period,  for  we  can  not 
ascertain  its  exact  length,  but  let  us  say  it  was  only 
fifty  years  (and  this  is  certainly  a  most  liberal  con- 
cession to  the  advocates  of  the  traditional  view),  yet,  as 
Penan  truly  observes,  "The  legend  of  Alexander  (the 
Great)  was  complete  before  the  generation  of  his  com- 
panions in  arms  was  extinct ;  that  of  Francis  d'  Assisi 
commenced  while  he  loas  yet  alive."  f  If  this  is  so,  it  is 
quite  credible  that  the  life  of  so  great  a  Person  as 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  was,  should,  within  fifty  years,  be 
surrounded  with  all  sorts  of  legendary  stories. 

The  real  reason  why  the  efforts  to  explain,  or  ex- 
plain away,  if  you  please,  the  alleged  miracles  of  Chris- 
tian history  are  so  distasteful  to  most  people,  is,  not 
their  intrinsic  weakness — not  because  they  are  based  on 
an  assumption  of  impossible  or  improbable  facts — but 
rather  the  false  notion  that  they  and  they  alone  can 
prove  the  divine  character  of  Christ.  In  refutation  of 
this  silly  notion,  I  would  ask  the  simple  question,  Did 
the  miracles  of  Elijah  or  Elisha  or  the  Apostles  prove 
their  divinity  ?  No !  The  divinity  of  Christ,  as  I  hope 
to  show  later,  rests  on  a  more  solid  foundation  than 
that  of  miracles ;  these  would  merely  prove  that  he  was 

*  Canon  Row's  "  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists,"  chap.  xvi. 
f  Renan's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  p.  40. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  217 

endowed  with  superhuman  power ;  and,  indeed,  even 
if  the  narratives  of  the  miracles  be  altogether  false,  still 
the  very  existence  of  such  stories  as  those  in  the  New 
Testament — the  very  fact  that  such  legends  about  Jesus 
grew  up  at  all — proves  that  he  must  have  been  a  truly 
wonderful  person.  No  ordinary  person  (John  the  Bap- 
tist, for  instance)  would  ever  have  called  forth  such  a 
train  of  legends.  Hence  all  (or  nearly  all)  that  miracles 
would  prove  concerning  Jesus  is  proved  by  the  New 
Testament,  even  if  it  be  a  collection  of  mvths.  If  "  there 
is  a  soul  of  truth  in  things  erroneous,"  surely  we  have  a 
soul  of  truth  in  these  narratives ;  back  of  all  the  clouds 
of  fable  we  discern  the  divine  form  of  the  Man  of  Naza- 
reth standing  like  a  beautiful,  shining  beacon  of  God, 
a  "  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles  and  the  glory  of  His 
people  Israel."  uBut,"  it  will  be  said,  "the  Yirgin- 
Birth  and  Bodily  Resurrection  of  Jesus  can  not  be  ex- 
plained as  natural  events,  and  they  present  the  greatest 
difficulties  to  a  reflecting  mind."  Let  us,  therefore? 
examine  the  arguments  which  are  usually  advanced 
to  disprove  these  miracles,  and  see  whether  we  may 
not  grant  whatever  force  there  is  in  them,  and  yet 
hold  on  to  the  kernel  of  the  birth  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus. 

First,  it  is  said,  while  the  possibility  of  the  virgin- 
birth  is  admitted  (for  what  is  not  possible  ?),  yet  its  im- 
probability is  so  great  that  only  the  most  overwhelming 
evidence  could  prove  such  a  miracle.  But  this  is  not 
forthcoming.  We  have  no  proof,  worthy  of  the  name, 
that  the  " speeches"  recorded  by  Matthew,  or  the 
"  notes  "  of  Mark  and  of  Luke,  contained  any  reference 
to  the  virgin-birth.  Indeed,  the  nature  of  these  writ- 
ings precludes  the  supposition  that  they  recorded  this 


2 IS   EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

alleged  event.  Matthew  gave  simply  a  short  synopsis 
of  the  discourses,  not  a  history  of  our  Lord,  according 
to  the  early  witnesses ;  and  Mark  also  made  notes  of  St. 
Peter's  sermons ;  while  Luke  dotted  down  memoranda 
of  St.  Paul's  missionary  journeys,  which  formed  the 
basis  of  the  Acts  and  led  to  the  attribution  to  him  of 
the  Third  Gospel.  But  in  such  writings  there  would 
be  no  natural  place  for  an  account  of  the  birth,  and 
hence  we  are  justified  in  believing  it  to  be  a  later  addi- 
tion by  an  unknown  redacteur  of  the  evangelistic  frag- 
ments. This  addition  seems  to  have  originated  from 
the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (vii,  14)  concerning  a  virgin-born 
Immanuel,  and  to  have  been  incorporated  with  the  afore- 
mentioned document.  The  fifteenth  verse  of  this  chap- 
ter shows  that  the  prophet  was  speaking  of  a  woman  of 
his  own  time,  for  it  says,  "  Before  the  child  shall  know 
to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  good,  the  land  that 
thou  [Ahaz]  abhorrest  [i.  e.,  Damascus  and  Samaria] 
shall  be  forsaken  of  both  her  kings,"  Pekah  and  Eezin. 
It  was  the  most  natural  thing  imaginable  that  a  writer 
of  the  first  or  second  century  of  our  era,  in  reading  this 
prophecy,  should  apply  it  to  our  Lord — the  true  Imman- 
uel— and  thus  originate  the  story  of  the  virgin-birth. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  early  disciples  relied  almost 
exclusively  upon  prophecy  for  proofs  of  the  messiah- 
ship  and  divinity  of  Christ.  Even  if  Matthew  and 
Luke  be  the  authors  of  the  stories  in  the  Gospels,  we 
can  readily  believe  that  they  should  so  understand  the 
prophecy.  Matthew  confessedly  writes  to  show  that  in 
Christ  the  Messianic  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  fulfilled,  and  he  quotes  and  applies  this  verse  (in 
i,  23)  to  Jesus,  adding,  "  Now  all  this  was  done  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  219 

prophet."  At  the  time  of  this  writing,  Mary,  the  mother 
of  Jesus,  was  probably  dead,  and  the  author  would  not 
trouble  himself  about  verifying  his  view  of  the  prophe- 
cy, but  would  simply  assume  its  correctness.  This  on 
the  supposition  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  this  story,  but, 
as  it  was  probably  written  much  later,  the  view  sug- 
gested becomes  more  credible.  Much  stress  has  been 
laid  on  St.  Luke's  testimony  because  he  was  a  physician, 
and  because  he  says  that  "  he  had  perfect  understanding 
of  all  things  from  the  very  first."  This,  of  course,  as- 
sumes that  St.  Luke  is  the  author  of  the  whole  Gospel 
as  we  have  it,  but  this  assumption  is  most  improbable. 
Granting,  however,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  Luke 
did  write  this  story,  it  is  urged  that  he  was  a  Gentile 
(Col.  iv,  11,  14)  who  was  familiar  with  stories  of  god- 
descended  persons,  and  wrote  his  Gospel  long  after  the 
events  recorded  in  foreign  parts  and  confessedly  got  his 
materials  from  tradition.  Physicians  in  those  days  were 
much  more  superstitious  than  they  are  now,  and  hence 
Luke  would  not  be  so  much  offended  by  this  story  as  we 
are,  and  it  is  quite  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  accepted 
the  stories  afloat  about  Jesus  without  so  rigid  an  inquiry 
in  every  case  as  a  modern  physician  would  make.  Mary 
was  probably  dead  at  the  time,  and  she  was  the  only 
person  who  could  give  unquestionable  testimony  on  the 
subject,  The  simple  disciples  of  Jesus  doubtless  origi- 
nated several  accounts  of  the  birth  from  Isaiah  vii  and 
Matthew  i,  and  Luke  got  one  of  these  various  traditions, 
and,  being  familiar  with  stories  of  virgin-born  sons  of 
God,  he  would  unhesitatingly  adopt  this  one.  If,  how- 
ever, this  story  be  a  later  addition  to  Luke's  notes  on  St. 
Paul's  journeys,  etc.,  this  view  is  more  probable. 

I  wish  to  cite  in  this  connection  two  eminent  clergy- 


220  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

men  of  the  Church  of  England  among  others,  namely, 
Eev.  Edwin  A.  Abbott,  D.  D.,  head  master  of  the  City 
of  London  School,  author  of  the  article  on  the  "  Gos- 
pels "  in  the  "  Encyclpoaedia  Britannica,"  etc. ;  and  the 
Eev.  IL  E.  Haweis,  M.  A.,  incumbent  of  St.  James's, 
Marylebone,  London. 

In  an  admirable  little  volume,  entitled  "  The  Kernel 
and  the  Husk  "  (Eoberts  Brothers,  Boston),  Dr.  Abbott 
says :  "  It  has  been  urged  that  St.  Luke  was  a  historian 
and  a  physician ;  that  he  had  great  power  of  careful 
description — as  may  be  seen  from  his  exact  account  of 
St.  Paul's  shipwreck ;  that  he  describes  the  circum- 
stances of  the  miraculous  birth  in  a  plain  and  simple 
manner ;  and  that  he  assures  us  that  he  had  taken  every 
pains  to  make  himself  acquainted  with  the  truth  of  the 
things  he  records.  All  this  may  be  :  but,  because  a  man 
can  describe  exactly  a  comparatively  recent  shipwreck, 
wdiich  he  may  have  himself  witnessed,  or  which,  at  all 
events,  may  have  been  witnessed  by  some  one  who  told 
him  the  story,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  has  exact  in- 
formation about  a  miraculous  birth  which  occurred  (if 
at  all)  upward  of  sixty  years — more  probably  upward 
of  seventy— before  he  wrote.  The  mother  of  Jesus 
had,  in  all  probability,  passed  away  when  St.  Luke 
was  writing.  Such  obscurities  and  variations  by  this 
time  attended  the  stories  concerning  the  infancy  of 
Jesus,  that  we  find  even  the  compiler  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel  apparently  ignorant  that  the  home  of  the  par- 
ents of  Jesus  was  (if  St.  Luke  is  correct  on  this  point) 
not  Bethlehem,  but  Nazareth.  It  is  hardly  possible  to 
deny  his  ignorance  when  we  find  in  the  first  Gospel 
these  words  :  i  Now  when  Jesus  was  born  in  Bethlehem 
of  Judsea  .  .  .  And  he  arose  and  took  the  young  child 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  221 

arid  Lis  mother  and  came  into  the  land  of  Israel.  But 
when  lie  heard  that  Archelaus  was  reigning  over  Ju- 
daea, lie  was  afraid  to  go  thither :  and  oeing  learned 
[of  God]  in  a  dream,  he  withdrew  into  the  parts  of 
Galilee  and  came  and  dwelt  in  a  city  called  Nazareth ." 
Obviously  the  writer  is  ignorant  that  "  a  city  called  Naz- 
areth" was  the  original  home  of  the  parents  of  Jesus, 
and  that  they  had  no  reason  for  returning  to  "  Judaea"  ; 
his  whole  narrative  assumes  that  Bethlehem  in  Judaea 
was  the  home,  and  that  the  parents  of  Jesus  were  only 
prevented  from  returning  thither  by  the  fear  of  Arche- 
laus, which  forced  them  to  leave  their  native  city  and  to 
take  up  their  abode  in  "  a  city  called  Nazareth."  (Head 
carefully  Matthew,  ii,  1-23.)  Now,  it  is  probable  that 
St.  Luke's  account  (chap,  ii,  1-7)  is  here  the  correct  one, 
and  that  the  erroneous  tradition  found  in  the  First 
Gospel  was  a  mere  inference  from  the  prophecy,  that 
"  from  Bethlehem  "  there  should  "  come  forth  a  gov- 
ernor" (Micah,  v,  2).  "But  what  a  light  does  this  dis- 
crepancy throw  upon  the  uncertainty  of  the  very  ear- 
liest traditions  about  the  infancy  of  Jesus,  when  we  find 
the  only  two  Evangelists  who  say  anything  about  it 
differing  as  to  the  place  where  the  parents  of  Jesus 
lived  at  the  time  tohen  they  were  married  !  I  have  no 
doubt  that  St.  Luke  did  his  best,  in  the  paucity,  or  more 
probably  in  the  variety,  of  conflicting  traditions,  to 
select  those  which  seemed  to  him  most  authoritative 
and  most  spiritual.  Even  the  most  careless  reader  of 
the  English  text  must  feel,  without  knowing  a  word  of 
Greek,  that  St.  Luke's  first  two  chapters — which  contain 
the  stories  of  the  infancy — are  entirely  different  from 
the  style  of  the  preface  (i,  1-4)  and  from  the  rest  of  the 
Gospel.     The  two  chapters  sound,  even  in  English,  like 


222  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

a  bit  out  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  any  Greek  scholar, 
accustomed  to  the  LXX  (Septuagint),  would  recognize 
that  they  were  either  a  close  translation  from  the  Ara- 
maic (the  corrupted  Hebrew  used  in  the  time  of  Christ), 
or  written  bv  some  one  who  wrote  in  Greek,  modeling 
his  style  on  the  LXX.  It  is  probable  that  they  repre- 
sent some  traditions  of  Aramaic  origin,  the  best  that  St. 
Luke  could  find  when  he  began  to  write  of  the  wonders 
that  had  happened  more  than  sixty  or  seventy  years  be- 
fore. To  those  who  can  form  the  least  conception  of 
the  extent  to  which  Oriental  tradition  in  the  villages  of 
Galilee  might  be  transmuted  after  an  interval  of  sixty 
or  seventy  years,  it  must  seem  quite  beside  the  mark  to 
assert  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  tradition  concerning 
the  miraculous  conception  which  St.  Luke  has  incor- 
porated in  his  Gospel,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a 
physician ;  that  he  took  pains  to  get  at  the  truth  ;  and 
that  he  has  written  a  masterly  and  exact  account  of  a 
shipwreck  which  he,  or  some  friends  of  his,  may  have 
witnessed  in  person."  * 

The  italics  in  the  foregoing  important  quotation  are 
the  author's,  and,  it  will  be  observed,  he  grants,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  th?t  St.  Luke  is  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  as  we  now  have  it ;  he  incorporated  the  tradition 
about  the  birth.  But  if  we  hold  the  more  probable  view 
that  St.  Luke  furnished  only  the  basis  of  the  Acts  in 
the  shape  of  some  "  notes  "  on  St.  Paul's  history,  that 
this  fact  led  to  the  attribution  to  him  of  the  Gospel,  and 
that  a  later  redacteur  added  the  tradition  of  the  birth 
and  other  stories  into  our  present  Gospel,  Dr.  Abbott's 
opinion  is  strengthened. 


*  "  The  Kernel  and  the  Husk,"  pp.  274-276. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  223 

To  tlie  same  effect  writes  the  Rev.  H.  R.  Ilaweis, 
M.  A.,  in  the  second  volume  of  his  valuable  work  on 
"  Christ  and  Christianity"  :  "  I  take  Mark  (a.  d.  cir. 
70),  the  earliest,  and  Matthew  (a.  p.  cir.  80)  and  Luke 
(a.  d.  cir.  90),  and  I  find  two  distinct  streams  of  tradi- 
tion about  the  birth  of  Christ.  Mark  says  nothing  of 
the  miraculous  conception,  or  the  angelic  appearances. 
They  were,  it  may  be,  not  currently  reported  in  his  day, 
for  had  he  heard  of  them  he  could  not  have  passed  them 
over.  Matthew  and  Luke  came  later,  and  embody  the 
later  tradition  of  the  miraculous  conception ;  but  they 
also  embody  the  earlier  view  of  Joseph? s  paternity,  and 
accordingly  give  the  genealogy  of  Joseph  (italics  mine). 
Matthew  traces  Joseph's  lineage  to  David ;  Luke  goes 
up  to  Adam,  and  plainly  says  that  the  current  opinion 
was  that  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph — '  being,  as 
was  supposed,  the  son  of  Joseph.'  From  Matthew's 
and  Luke's  point  of  view  Joseph's  pedigree  could  have 
no  consequence  at  all.  The  miraculous  conception  blots 
him  out;  his  pedigree  is  merely  the  record  of  what  was 
the  early  Christian  belief,  possibly  up  to  the  death  of 
Mary  "  (italics  mine). 

"  I  will  put  it  clearly  thus :  Toward  the  close  of  the 
first  century  there  were  two  sects  of  Christians,  the 
Jewish  and  the  Gentile — the  earlier  sect,  who  followed 
Mark  and  Peter  (for  Mark's  Gospel  is,  in  fact,  Peter's) ; 
the  later  sect,  who  followed  Luke  and  Paul  (for  Luke's 
Gospel  is,  in  fact,  Paul's).  Matthew  represents  a  state 
of  transition  thought  between  Mark  and  Luke.  Both 
sects  spoke  of  Jesus  as  Son  of  God ;  both  saw  in  Him 
in  some  sense  a  divine  presence.  But  the  earlier  Jew- 
ish Christians  represented  by  Mark  seem  to  have  known 
nothing  of  the  miraculous  conception,  and  believed  the 


224  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

divine  life  in  Jesus  to  be  a  spiritual  influence  transfus- 
ing His  humanity ;  while  the  later  Gentile  Christians 
represented  by  Luke  considered  the  divine  life  in  Jesus 
to  be  due  to  a  certain  physical  but  miraculous  influence, 
wholly  independent  of  Joseph,  and  operant  at  the  time 
of  Mary's  conception."  *  It  thus  appears  that  the  evi- 
dence supporting  the  story  of  the  virgin-birth  is  so  un- 
certain that  it  can  not  satisfy  some  minds  that  have  been 
trained  from  their  earliest  years  to  accept  the  Bible  as 
an  infallible  record ;  and  surely,  when  we  And  clergymen 
like  Dr.  Abbott  and  Mr.  Haweis  rejecting  this  story,  it 
is  time  to  examine  it  more  closely;  it  is  time  the  Church 
allowed  more  liberty  of  belief  on  this  subject. 

In  the  foregoing  quotation  it  is  said,  truly,  that 
Jesus  is  called  the  son  of  Joseph  in  the  Gospels  them- 
selves. "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son  ? "  it  is  asked, 
"and  his  brethren,  James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon,  and 
Judas?  and  his  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with  us?5'  (Mat- 
thew, xiii,  55,  56,  Luke  iv,  22).  In  John  vi,  42  it  is 
again  asked,  "Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph, 
whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ?"  Considering  the 
fragmentary  and  gradual  composition  of  the  Gospels,  we 
seem  justified  in  concluding  that  these  passages  contain 
the  original  and  true  account  of  Christ's  parentage,  and 
that  the  story  of  the  virgin-birth  was  a  later  addition  to 
this  narrative.  It  should  be  specially  noted  that  our 
Lord  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  remove  the  popular 
impression  about  Joseph's  being  His  father,  which  is 
certainly  very  remarkable,  to  say  the  least,  if  it  were 
false.  But  if  it  was  true — if  Joseph  really  was  his 
father — then,  of  course,  it  was  perfectly  natural  that 

*  "  Christ  and  Christianity,"  "  The  Picture  of  Jesus,"  pp.  7-9. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  225 

he  should  let  the  impression  remain  upon  the  popular 
mind. 

It  will  probably  be  said,  just  here,  that  the  conflict 
between  the  alleged  earlier  account  of  the  parentage, 
and  the  later  addition  of  the  story  of  the  virgin  birth, 
must  have  been  quite  as  clear  to  the  redacteur  of  the 
early  traditions  as  it  is  to  us,  and  he  would  not  have 
been  so  dumb  as  to  insert  such  palpably  conflicting 
stories.  To  which  it  may  be  replied :  (1)  Other  dis- 
crepancies as  glaring  as  this  were  suffered  to  pass  un- 
reconciled into  the  Gospels  :  and,  (2)  the  author  of 
the  third  Gospel,  chap,  iii,  23,  does  attempt  to  explain 
away  the  discrepancy  by  saying  that  Jesus  was  merely 
supposed  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph.  But  this  attempt 
itself  confirms  the  view  that  Jesus  during  His  life,  and 
for  some  time  after  His  death,  was  considered  the  son 
of  Joseph,  and  the  idea  of  His  virgin  birth  was  an  after- 
thought. 

The  first  two  facts,  then,  which  are  adduced  to  dis- 
prove the  story  of  the  virgin-birth  of  Christ  are  its  un- 
certain and  late  authorship,  and  the  existence  in  the 
Gospels  of  passages  which  show  that  His  contemporaries 
considered  Him  Joseph's  son.  But  a  third  fact,  of  even 
more  importance,  is  the  utter  silence  of  St.  Paul  and 
other  writers  of  Epistles  about  the  virgin-birth.  St. 
Paul's  Epistles  are  the  oldest  records  of  Christianity, 
and  date  back  within  twenty  or  twenty-five  years  of  the 
death  of  Christ ;  his  conversion  occurred  only  a  few — six 
or  eight — years  after  that  event ;  he,  being  a  devout  Jew, 
probably  made  most  careful  inquiry  about  the  family 
and  pretensions  of  this  "  Son  of  David  "  ;  he  had  every 
opportunity  of  finding  out  the  exact  facts  of  the  case, 
being  intimately  acquainted  with  the    immediate  dis- 


226  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

ciples  of  Jesus,  perhaps  with  His  family.  He  empha- 
sized the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Christ  (Col.  i,  13- 
17  and  ii,  9,  etc.) ;  and  yet  he  says  absolutely  nothing 
about  His  birth  from  a  virgin  !  Such  silence  on  so 
important  a  subject  is  most  startling,  except  on  the  sup- 
position that  in  St.  Paul's  day  Joseph's  paternity  had 
not  been  questioned  or  denied.  St.  Paul  apparently 
knew  nothing  of  a  virgin-birth.  It  was  this  fact  which 
led  Coleridge,  one  of  the  greatest  philosophers  of  his 
day,  and  the  teacher  of  many  eminent  theologians,  an 
earnest  Christian,  and  a  staunch  defender  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  to  say  :  "  Having  now  overpassed 
six  sevenths  of  the  ordinary  period  allotted  to  human 
life — resting  my  whole  and  sole  hope  of  salvation  and 
immortality  on  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  redemp- 
tion by  His  cross  and  passion,  and  holding  the  doctrine 
of  the  Triune  God  as  the  very  ground  and  foundation 
of  the  Gospel-faith — I  feel  myself  enforced  to  declare 
and  avow  that,  in  my  deliberate  judgment,  the  Christo- 
pcedia  prefixed  to  the  third  gospel,  and  incorporated 
with  the  first,  but  according  to  my  belief,  in  its  present 
form,  the  latest  of  the  four,  was  unknown  to  or  not 
recognized  by  the  Apostles  Paul  and  John  ;  and  that 
instead  of  supporting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and 
the  Filial  Godhead,  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  as  set  forth 
by  John,  i,  1,  and  by  Paul,  it  if  not  altogether  irrecon- 
cilable with  this  faith,  doth  yet  greatly  weaken  and 
bedim  its  evidence ;  and  that,  by  the  too  palpable 
contradictions  between  the  narrative  in  the  first  Gospel 
and  that  in  the  third,  it  has  been  a  fruitful  magazine 
of  doubts  respecting  the  historic  character  of  the  Gospels 
themselves.  But  were  it  asked  of  me,  Do  you,  then, 
believe  our  Lord  to  have   been  the  son  of  Mary  by 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  227 

Joseph  ?  I  reply,  It  is  a  point  of  religion  with  me  to 
have  no  belief  one  way  or  the  other.  I  am  in  this 
way  like  St.  Paul,  more  than  content  not  to  know 
Christ  Himself  Kara  adp/ca  " — after  the  flesh.* 

It  is  clear  that  Coleridge  did  not  believe  either  the 
story  or  the  fact  of  the  virgin-birth ;  at  least,  he  says, 
"  I  give  it  up."  Other  eminent  divines,  such  as  Schleier- 
macher  and  Keim,  in  Germany,  and  profound  philoso- 
phers, might  be  cited  in  support  of  the  view  of  the 
birth  of  Jesus  here  advocated,  but  space  forbids  such 
citation.  A  fourth  fact  which  Dr.  x^bbott  adduces  to 
disprove,  this  story  is  the  disbelief  of  it  among  a  large 
number  of  the  early  Christians.  In  the  forty-eighth 
chapter  of  Justin  Martyr's  Dialogue  with  Tryjpho  we 
read  these  words :  "  Now,  assuredly,  Trypho,  the  proof 
that  this  man  (Jesus)  is  the  Christ  of  God  does  not  fail, 
though  I  be  unable  to  prove  that  He  existed  formerly  as 
Son  of  the  Maker  of  all  things,  being  God,  and  was 
born  a  man  by  the  Virgin.  But,  since  I  have  certainly 
proved  that  this  man  is  the  Christ  of  God,  whoever  He 
be,  even  if  I  do  not  prove  that  He  pre-existed,  and  sub- 
mitted to  be  born  a  man  of  like  passions  with  us,  having 
a  body,  according  to  the  Father's  will ;  in  this  last  mat- 
ter alone  is  it  just  to  say  that  I  have  erred,  and  not  to 
deny  that  He  is  the  Christ,  though  it  should  appear  that 
he  was  born  man  of  men,  and  nothing  more  is  proved 
than  this,  that  He  has  become  Christ  by  election.  For 
there  are  some  of  our  race  who  admit  that  He  is  Christ 
while  holding  Him  to  he  man  of  men,  with  whom  I  do 
not  agree,  nor  would  I,  even  though  most  of  those  who 
have  now  the  same  opinions  as  myself  should  say  so, 

*  Coleridge's  collected  "  Works,"  vol.  v,  p.  79,  published  by  Har- 
per &  Brothers,  New  York, 
11 


223  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

since  we  were  enjoined  by  Christ  Himself  to  put  no 
faith  in  human  doctrines,  hut  in  those  proclaimed  by 
the  blessed  prophets  and  taught  by  Himself." 

This  striking  passage,  Dr.  Abbott  rightly  says,  "  in- 
dicates that  even  in  Justin's  time  (150  a.  d.)  a  large 
though  not  a  very  large  number  of  Christians  in  Sama- 
ria or  Judea  believed  that  Christ  was  the  son  of  Joseph, 
and  that  a  principal  part  of  the  evidence  for  the  con- 
trary belief  was  based  upon  the  proclamations  of  the 
prophets."  *  The  words  I  have  italicized  in  the  pas- 
sage prove  this. 

Another  remarkable  passage  in  Justin's  works  bear- 
ing on  this  subject  is  the  twenty-first  and  twenty-second 
chapters  of  his  First  Apology.  It  reads  :  "  When 
we  [Christians]  say  that  the  Word  [Jesus],  who  is  the 
first-born  of  God,  was  produced  without  sexual  union, 
.  .  .  we  propound  nothing  different  from  what  you 
[heathen]  believe  regarding  those  whom  you  esteem 
the  sons  of  Jupiter.  For  you  know  how  many  sons 
your  esteemed  writers  ascribed  to  Jupiter:  Mercury, 
the  interpreting  word  and  teacher  of  all ;  ^Esculapius, 
who  was  a  great  physician,  etc.  .  .  .  Moreover,  the 
Son  of  God,  called  Jesus,  even  if  only  a  man  by  ordi- 
nary generation,  yet,  on  account  of  his  wisdom,  is  wor- 
thy to  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  Of  course,  this  pas- 
sage does  not  prove  that  Justin  believed  the  stories 
about  god-descended  persons  among  the  heathens,  but 
it  does  show  that  even  a  great  philosopher  of  those 
times  did  not  experience  the  same  difficulty  in  accept- 
ing the  story  of  the  virgin -birth  that  we  feel.  The 
early  Christians  had  the  minds  of  children,  and,  in  their 

*  Article  on  the  Gospels  in  the  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica." 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  229 

simplicity,  found  no  difficulty  in  the  idea  of  a  virgin- 
born  Son  of  God.  They  therefore  applied  Isaiah's 
prophecy  unhesitatingly  to  Jesus — accepted  its  literal 
meaning — and  defended  such  an  application  by  such 
fallacious  arguments  as  those  of  Justin  just  cited.  But 
surely  we  are  not  obliged  to  accept  the  testimony  of 
such  credulous  writers  as  infallible  ! 

Finally,  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  birth  of 
Jesus  was  precisely  the  event  that  the  fabulists  laid 
hold  of  and  wove  round  it  a  perfect  mass  of  legend. 
Thus,  in  the  Gospel  of  James  (chaps,  xvii-xx),  we  have 
an  account  of  the  virgin-birth  which  is  more  elaborate, 
and  yet  the  essence  of  the  story  is  not  different  from 
that  in  the  canonical  Gospels.  In  both  the  birth  is 
attributed  to  a  special  act  of  the  Holy  Ghost  apart 
from  the  influence  of  Joseph,  and  the  arguments  that 
disprove  the  truth  of  the  narrative  of  James  will  also 
destroy  the  other  Gospel  account.  We  do  not  know 
who  wrote  either,  but  both  are  quite  certainly  late  pro- 
ductions. 

For  such  reasons  many  of  us  feel  that  we  must  reject 
the  story  of  the  virgin-birth  of  Jesus.  But,  in  doing 
this,  we  need  not  and  do  not  reject  either  the  miracu- 
lous nature  of  his  birth  or  his  divinity.  There  are 
moral  and  spiritual  miracles  as  well  as  physical,  and  so 
we  may  believe  that  a  spiritual  miracle  was  wrought 
when  Jesus  was  born.  His  entire  life,  the  main  events 
of  which  can  be  clearly  enough  made  out  despite  the 
uncertain  authorship  of  the  Gospels,  proclaims  Ilim 
to  have  been  the  purest  and  most  perfect  of  men.  The 
very  fact  that  such  stories  as  that  of  the  immaculate 
conception  were  started  about  Him,  the  great  adoration 
of  Him,  and  such  like  facts,  all  point  to  a  perfect  moral 


230  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

and  spiritual  character.  But  such  a  character  is  itself 
the  greatest  of  miracles,  since  no  mere  man  is  perfect. 
We  may  believe,  therefore,  that  as  great  a  miracle  was 
wrought  when  Jesus  was  born  as  when  life  or  self-con- 
scious mind  was  introduced  upon  earth.  In  each  case 
a  special  operation  of  the  Divine  Will,  the  source  of 
all  natural  forces,  occurred ;  but  we  may  hold  that  the 
Divine  Will  worked  along  the  lines  of  its  ordinary  op- 
erations— did  not  violate  the  laws  of  veneration  which 
had  been  already  established.  In  short,  Joseph  and 
Mary  may  have  become  the  media  through  which  the 
perfect  Son  of  Man  was  given  to  mankind  by  God  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  yet  He  may  have  been,  in  a  true  sense, 
God's  only-begotten  Son. 

This  view  is  thoroughly  consistent  with  the  evolu- 
tion theory.  This  philosophy  teaches  that  there  has 
been  going  on  from  the  beginning  of  the  present  order 
of  things  a  twofold  development — an  evolution  of  ma- 
terial forms  and  an  evolution  of  immaterial  forces. 
The  material  development  reached  completion  in  the 
human  body,  but  the  human  spirit  was  originally  little 
more  than  an  appendage  of  the  body.  But,  when  the 
evolutionary  process  reached  its  goal  in  the' human 
body,  it  was  transferred  to  a  higher  plane — to  the  spir- 
itual nature  of  man — and  from  that  day  forward  it  has 
been  working  for  the  perfection  of  the  soul. 

There  have  been  many  ajyproxiynations  to  this  ideal 
in  such  spiritual  giants  as  Abraham,  Moses,  Isaiah,  Job, 
Buddha,  Confucius,  Zoroaster,  Socrates,  Paul,  and  oth- 
ers, but  among  the  sons  of  men  none  seems  to  have  at- 
tained perfection  but  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  we  there- 
fore conclude  that  He  was  specially  endowed  of  God 
with  a  unique  spiritual  nature.     He  is  the  Ideal  Man 


EVOLUTION'  AND  MIRACLES.  230a 

and  Kins:  of  men — the  realization  of  God's  ideal  of 
humanity.  Let  it  he  remembered  that  I  am  here 
speaking  of  the  hitman  nature  of  Jesus,  not  of  the 
divine  side  of  His  character ;  for  of  course  it  was  as  a 
man,  not  as  God,  that  He  was  born,  since  it  is  absurd 
to  talk  of  the  birth  of  a  God !  No  generated  or  created 
being  would  deserve  the  name  of  Deity  ;  eternity  is  a 
necessary  attribute  of  God.  I  shall  speak  more  fully 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ  in  the  following  chapters.  This 
is  said  in  this  connection  because  it  seems  to  be  pretty 
generally  believed  that  the  virgin-birth  of  Jesus  is  insep- 
arably connected  with  His  divine  character ;  but  surely 
the  origin  and  the  character  of  a  person  are  two  dis- 
tinct questions.  Those  insects  that  are  parthenogenetic- 
ally  born  are  no  more  divine  than  insects  born  in  the 
ordinary  way.  Neither  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel nor  St.  Paul  says  anything  about  the  virgin-birth, 
and  yet  both  accept  and  emphasize  the  divinity  of 
Christ.  We  are  therefore  justified  in  separating  these 
two  events,  and  showing  that  one  may  be  a  fact,  even  if 
the  other  is  not.  It  is  also  assumed  that  if  Christ  was 
divine — "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  " — it  was  very  natu- 
ral, if  not  necessary,  that  He  should  be  born  in  a  unique 
manner — that  is,  of  a  virgin.  But  this  idea  is  easily 
disproved.  First,  if  the  agency  of  the  woman  did  not 
interfere  with  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son,  neither  would 
the  agency  of  the  man.  And,  second,  if  the  laws  of 
generation  must  be  partially  set  aside  in  order  to  make 
the  Incarnation  possible,  then  we  may  logically  urge 
that  they  should  have  been  wholly  ignored,  and  an  ab- 
solutely new  body  should  have  been  created  for  Jesus 
without  the  use  of  human  agency.  But  since  He  was 
to  be  perfect  Man  as  well  as  perfect  God,  it  was  proper 


230b  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

that  He  should  be  born  as  men  are  born.  The  whole 
idea  of  the  immaculate  conception  and  the  virgin-birth 
involves  many  unnecessary  difficulties.  It  seems  to 
teach  that  there  is  something  inherently  sinful  in  mat- 
ter and  the  marital  relation — an  old  error  which  no 
enlightened  mind  of  to-day  can  entertain.  This  notion 
has  led  to  an  exaltation  of  celibacy  over  the  marriage 
state — to  the  opinion  that  the  celibate  state  is  purer 
than  marriage— a  doctrine  that  has  produced  some  of 
the  greatest  evils  recorded  in  church  history.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  virgin-birth  has  also  contributed  largely  to 
the  worship  of  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  all  its 
numerous  superstitions.  Should  this  theory  be  given  up, 
these  gigantic  errors  will  disappear  from  Christendom. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  must  now  claim  our  at- 
tention. 

There  are  two  views  of  the  resurrection,  and  each 
one  of  these  subdivides  itself.  One  class  of  writers  re- 
ject this  miracle  along  with  all  others,  and  offer  one  of 
two  explanations  of  the  stories  relating  this  event. 
Christ,  say  they,  either  did  not  die  on  the  cross,  and  so 
recovered  after  He  was  laid  in  the  tomb,  or  His  disciples 
simply  imagined  that  they  saw  Him  alive  after  His 
death — just  as  the  spiritualists  of  to-day  fancy  that  they 
see  their  departed  friends  come  out  of  cabinets,  and  so  on. 

Now  I  have  thought  long  and  carefully  upon  this 
proposition,  and  I  am  unable  to  accept  it.  The  first 
view — that  Christ  did  not  die  upon  the  cross — is  in- 
trinsically improbable,  apart  from  the  Gospel  accounts 
of  His  death.  It  is  not  probable  that  so  great  a  Victim 
of  Jewish  hatred  as  Jesus  was  would  be  allowed  to  es- 
cape only  half-killed.  But  more  especially  this  propo- 
sition attributes  to  the  disciples  of  our  Lord  a  degree  of 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  230c 

moral  turpitude  which  we  can  not  believe  they  possessed. 
They  may  have  been  simple-minded  men,  but  they  were 
not  hiaves  who  could  preach  what  they  knew  to  be 
lies ;  nor  would  Christ  have  allowed  them  to  say  that 
He  had  risen  fro  in  the  dead  when  He  had  not  been 
dead.  The  theory  of  visions  which  holds  that  our 
Lord  really  died,  but  that  His  disciples  only  imagined 
they  saw  Him  alive  after  His  crucifixion,  deserves  more 
consideration,  yet  I  am  unable  to  believe  it.  It  has,  in 
my  opinion,  been  amply  refuted  by  Dr.  Christlieb,* 
Canon  Kow,f  and  others.  The  death  of  Jesus  com- 
pletely shattered  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  the  dis- 
ciples; they  did  not  anticipate  his  resurrection,  and  so 
the  necessary  prepossession — "the  fixed  idea"  neces- 
sary to  hallucination  was  wanting.  But,  above  all,  the 
wonderful  revival  of  their  spirits,  the  strength  of  the 
conviction  that  they  had  seen  the  risen  Lord,  the  testi- 
mony of  St.  Paul  that  He  was  seen  by  many  under 
different  circumstances,  at  different  times,  and  in  differ- 
ent places— all  this  disproves  the  visionary  theory. 
Yerily,  nothing  less  than  an  epidemic  of  hallucination 
could  explain  such  visions,  and  even  this  would  not  be 
satisfactory.  I  believe  that  no  hallucination  could  have 
converted  Saul  of  Tarsus  from  the  bigoted  Jewish  per- 
secutor to  an  humble  Christian,  M.  Kenan  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  And  after  his  conversion  I  doubt  not 
that  he  would  carefully  examine  the  other  disciples 
who  professed  to  have  seen  the  risen  Jesus,  and,  had  the 
evidence  not  been  very  strong,  this  disciple  of  Gamaliel 
would  not  have  accepted  and  preached  the  fact  of  the 

resurrection  ;  or,  if  he  had  done  so,  he  would  not  have 

■ * . — — 

*  "  Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief,"  chap.  vii. 
f  Bampton  Lectures,  1877,  Lect.  vii. 


230d  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

succeeded  in  palming  off  his  visions  upon  the  skeptical 
Corinthians   and   others   whom   he    convinced    of   the 
reality  of  the  resurrection.    Something,  therefore,  really 
wonderful,    miraculous,    must    have    happened.      The 
Christian   Church   can   not  be   believed   to  rest  upon 
a  delusion.      Shall  we,  then,  believe,  with  the  major- 
ity of   Christians,  that   the   dead    body  of  Jesus   was 
resuscitated  ?     I  think  not.     The  following  considera- 
tions are  urged  against  this  view :  First,  the  resurrection 
of  a  dead  body,  while  it  is  not  impossible,  is  so  improba- 
ble that  only  the  most  overwhelming  amount  of  evidence 
could  establish  such  a  fact.     Whether  we  agree  with 
one  skeptic  or  not  that  "  we  would  not  believe  to-day  the 
testimony  of  millions  to  the  effect  that  a  dead  body  had 
been  raised  to  life,"  yet  we  must  admit,  with  others, 
that  such  a  miracle  must  be  proved  by  the  most  unim- 
peachable evidence.     But  this  is  precisely  what  can  not 
be  done  in  the  present  instance.    The  authorship  of  the 
Gospels  is  too  uncertain  to  allow  us  to  put  implicit  con- 
fidence in  them.      Their  slow  and  gradual  formation 
may  have  allowed  of  additions  being  made  to  the  true 
account  of  facts ;  and  this  seems  to  have  happened  in 
the  present  case.     Thus  we  read  in  John,  xx,  19,  26,  27, 
that  the  risen  Jesus  passed  through  closed  doors,  and  in 
Luke,  xxiv,  39-43,  we  read  that  Jesus  undertook  to  con- 
vince His  skeptical  disciples  that  He  then  possessed  the 
veritable  body  that  had  been  crucified  and  laid  in  the 
tomb,  by  bidding  them  handle  him,  "  for  a  spirit  hath 
rot  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see  me  have,"  and  also  by  eat- 
ing fish  and  honey.     Now  here  seems  to  be  as  clear  a 
contradiction   as   could   possibly  be.     We   do  not,   of 
course,  know  everything,  but  we  do  know  that  it  is 
impossible  for  two  pieces  of  matter  to  occupy  the  same 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  230e 

space  at  the  same  time.  Hence  it  was  physically  impos- 
sible that  the  bodily  Jesus  should  pass  through  a  closed 
door  without  breaking  it  open.  It  is  equally  certain 
that  "a  spirit  [by  its  very  definition]  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones,"  and  does  not  feed  on  material  food,  such  as  fish 
and  honey.  Therefore  if  Luke's  words  are  true,  John's 
are  false ;  if  John's  are  true,  Luke's  are  false.  This  is 
the  dilemma  to  which  a  common-sense  view  of  this  nar- 
rative reduces  us.  But  the  traditionalists  try  to  get  over 
the  difficulty  by  assuming  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was, 
in  or  after  its  resurrection,  "  spiritualized,"  i:  glorified." 
But  it  may  be  said,  first,  the  narratives  do  not  say  that 
this  happened  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  strive  to  prove 
that  it  did  not  happen,  and  hence  this  is  a  pure  assump- 
tion. Secondly,  a  body  that  had  been  so  "  spiritualized  " 
that  it  could  go  through  a  closed  door  was  no  body,  as 
we  understand  it — its  material  nature  had  been  annihi- 
lated. And,  finally,  this  supposition  does  not  explain 
Luke's  words.  A  "  spiritualized  body  "  would  not  have 
flesh  and  bones  any  more  than  a  spirit,  nor  would  it 
eat  fish  and  honey  as  men  do.  If,  now,  we  assume,  as 
we  seem  justified  in  doing,  that  Luke's  narrative  is  a 
late  addition  to  the  real  account,  due  to  the  doubts  that 
had  risen  about  the  resurrection,  we  shall  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  reconciling  this  great  discrepancy. 

But  even  more  fatal  to  the  popular  view  of  the  res- 
urrection than  the  uncertain  authorship  and  the  dis- 
crepancies of  the  Gospels  is  its  apparent  contradiction  of 
St.  Paul.  He  distinctly  and  emphatically  says,  "  Flesh 
and  blood  can  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (I  Cor., 
xv,  50).  And  since  this  epistle,  whose  authorship  and  au- 
thority are  unquestioned,  is  contradicted  by  a  document 
whose  authorship  is  unknown  and  whose  authority  is, 


230f  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  say  the  least,  less  credible,  we  surely  will  not  hesitate 
to  give  preference  to  the  genuine  document.  Of  course, 
it  is  said  that  St.  Paul  does  not  mean  that  no  flesh  and 
blood  can  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  only  that  flesh 
and  blood  in  its  present,  earthly  condition  can  not  inherit 
that  kingdom.  In  other  words,  flesh  and  blood  must 
become  no-flesh-and-blood  before  it  can  enter  heaven. 
This  is  mere  verbal  jugglery  !  The  plain,  common-sense 
view  is  to  take  the  apostle  at  his  word,  and  believe  that 
he  means  what  he  says.  He  says  that  the  body  that  is 
sown  (buried)  is  not  that  body  that  shall  be,  but  God 
giveth  us  bodies  as  it  shall  please  Him  ;  and  "  there  is  a 
natural  body  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body."  The  plain 
meaning  of  all  this  is,  that  the  bodies,  such  as  we  know 
them — the  bodies  that  are  laid  in  the  grave — will  never 
rise.  This  is  clear,  but  it  is  not  so  clear  what  the  apostle 
means  by  "  the  spiritual  body."  Still,  we  must  cling  to 
the  indisputable  fact,  and  that  is,  that  our  bodies  will 
not  rise  from  the  grave.  But,  if  not,  why  believe  that 
Christ's  body  was  resurrected?  If  it  were,  then  not 
only  have  flesh  and  blood  inherited  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  but  his  body  will  be  the  only  body  in  heaven ! 
Now  we  may  escape  from  all  these  difficulties  by  giving 
up  the  doctrine  of  a  material  resurrection  altogether  (in 
Christ's  case  as  well  as  in  ours),  and  adopting  the  theory 
of  a  spiritual  resurrection,  and  the  arguments  advanced 
in  favor  of  the  spiritual  resurrection  are  as  follow : 

In  the  first  place,  the  doctrine  of  a  spiritual  resur- 
rection accords  with  what  we  know  of  the  destiny  of 
material  nature,  and  with  philosophical  ideas  of  heaven 
and  hell.  Science  and  Scripture  (II  Peter,  iii,  10)  both 
declare  that  the  material  world  is  wearing  out,  and  the 
day  must  come  when  "  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  230g 

a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent 
heat ;  the  earth  also  and  the  works  that  are  therein  shall 
be  burned  up."  Hence,  if  we  conclude,  and  many  facts 
seem  to  justify  the  conclusion,  that  this  physical  uni- 
verse will  be  succeeded  by  a  spiritual  universe,  which 
will  consist  of  a  spiritual  God  and  finite  spirits,  we  shall 
get  rid  of  the  difficulties  in  the  doctrine  of  a  material 
heaven  and  hell  and  a  material  resurrection.  Indeed, 
this  view  of  our  resurrection  is  now  generally  accepted 
by  the  best  theologians.  Thus,  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle 
says :  "  This  view  [that  of  a  material  resurrection]  is 
mentioned  here,  because  it  is  one  which  our  present 
knowledge  of  matter  and  its  laws  renders  it  imperative 
upon  all  wise  men  to  discard.  Matter  which  appertains 
to  one  body  at  one  time  appertains  to  another  body  at 
another  time.  The  notion  of  particle  being  joined  to 
particle,  so  as  to  reform  a  certain  body,  involves  an  im- 
possibility, because  the  same  particle  may  have  belonged 
to  a  thousand  different  bodies,  and  may  be  claimed  by 
one  as  rightfully  as  by  another.  In  fact,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  bring  the  notion  into  contact  with  what  we  cer- 
tainly know  concerning  material  particles  to  break  down 
and  annihilate  it."  *  Had  Dr.  Goodwin  lived  in  Bishop 
Pearson's  day,  and  had  he  expressed  such  views  then, 
he  would  have  been  excommunicated  as  a  heretic.  Yet 
not  only  do  bishops  and  doctors  hold  this  view  of  our 
resurrection,  but  all  intelligent  laymen  hold  the  same 
view.  Ask  one  who  has  lost  a  friend  from  a  cancer  or 
a  wound  if  he  expects  his  friend's  mutilated  body  to  be 
raised  at  the  last  day,  and  he  will  at  once  flout  the  idea. 
If  he  be  logical,  he  will  follow  Dr.  Goodwin  to  his 

*  "  Foundations  of  the  Creed,"  p.  330. 


230h  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

conclusion  that  our  resurrection  bodies  will  be  entirely 
and  essentially  different  from  those  laid  in  the  grave. 
It  is  simply  proposed  that  this  doctrine  be  applied  to 
Christ,  who  has  become  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept. 
In  the  second  place,  as  already  intimated,  this  view 
of  our  Lord's  resurrection  explains  the  words  of  St. 
Paul  in  I  Cor.,  xv,  and  the  Gospel  narratives  better 
than  the  old  view.  Thus,  St.  Paul  says  that  Christ 
was  seen  after  His  death  by  Cephas  (Peter),  then  of  the 
twelve ;  after  that  of  above  five  hundred  brethren  at 
once ;  after  that  He  was  seen  of  James,  then  of  all  the 
apostles,  "  and  last  of  all "  (he  adds)  "  He  was  seen  of  me 
also  "  (vers.  5-8).  The  apostle  here  classes  the  appear- 
ances of  the  risen  Lord  to  the  other  apostles  with  that 
to  himself,  and  we  know  from  the  Acts  (ix,  1-22,  etc.) 
and  Galatians  (ii,  1,  2)  that  this  was  a  spiritual  not  a 
bodily  manifestation,  for  only  St.  Paul  saw  Jesus ;  his 
companions  did  not  see  Him.*  Of  course,  the  tradi- 
tionalist is  ready  with  his  "  glorified-body  "  theory  to 
explain  this  vision ;  but  the  more  probable  and  less 
strained  interpretation  of  the  vision  is  that  Jesus  showed 
Himself  in  spirit  to  St.  Paul.  This  view  also  explains 
the  puzzling  passages  in  the  Gospels.  If  Jesus  appeared 
as  a  spirit  to  His  disciples,  we  can  understand  more  read- 
ily how  He  passed  through  closed  doors,  for  light  passes 
easily  through  wood,  glass,  etc.,  and  spirit  is  a  much 
finer  substance  than  light.  "We  have  no  difficulty  in 
understanding  why  the  two  disciples  on  their  way  to 
Emmaus  (Luke,  xxiv^  13-35)  did  not  at  first  recognize 
their  Master,  and  we  are  not  surprised  that  Mary  Mag- 
dalene (John,  xx,  14, 15,  etc.)  did  not  at  first  know  him. 

*  See  Abbott's  "  Kernel  and  Husk,"  p.  229,  etc. ;  and  Haweis's 
u  Picture  of  Jesus,"  chap.  xxiv. 


EVOLUTION  AND   MIRACLES.  230i 

It  is  notable  that  in  Mark,  xvi,  12  it  is  said  "  He  ap- 
peared in  another  form  unto  "  the  two  disciples  going 
to  Einmaus  from  that  in  which  he  appeared  to  Mary — 
in  short,  the  narratives  of  the  resurrection  in  the  Gos- 
pels read  exactly  like  ghost-stories.  The  risen  Jesus  ap- 
pears and  disappears  suddenly,  unexpectedly,  strangely, 
just  as  a  spirit  is  supposed  to  do,  and  the  doctrine  of 
His  appearance  in  a  spiritual  form  explains  all  these 
phenomena  without  the  inventions  and  assumptions  of 
traditional  theology  ;  further,  it  sacrifices  no  fact  of  any 
practical  importance.  The  evidential  value  of  Christ's 
resurrection  is  just  as  great  according  to  this  view  as 
according  to  the  old  view.  That  event  does  not  afford 
even  a  presumption  in  favor  of  our  resurrection,  for,  by 
the  supposition,  Christ's  body  did  not  molder  into  dust 
— it  saw  not  corruption — as  ours  will.  His  post-mortem 
manifestation  to  His  disciples,  therefore,  simply  proves 
that  there  is  life  after  death — that  the  soul  survives 
afterward — and  this  is  proved  by  the  new  view. 

A  common  question  is,  What  became  of  Christ's 
body  if  it  did  not  rise  from  the  grave?  After  what 
has  been  said,  this  question  loses  all  its  force.  It  de- 
pends upon  and  assumes  the  correctness  of  the  details  in 
the  Gospels  about  the  guarded  tomb,  the  missing  body, 
etc. ;  but,  owing  to  the  uncertain  authorship  of  these 
stories,  and  their  slow  and  gradual  and  late  production, 
it  is  urged  we  can  not  accept  these  details  as  true,  espe- 
cially as  they  seem  to  contradict  St.  Paul's  narrative  of 
the  resurrection.  We  may  believe  the  essence  of  these 
stories,  namely,  that  Christ  was  crucified,  dead,  and 
buried  (probably  in  a  stranger's  tomb),  and  that  the 
third  day  He  appeared  to  His  disciples,  for  this  much  of 
the  Gospels  is  confirmed  by  St.  Paul's  genuine  epistles, 


230j  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

and  is  not  in  itself  so  incredible  as  the  reanimation  of 
a  dead  body.  In  the  hurry  and  confusion  and  conster- 
nation produced  by  the  crucifixion,  it  is  not  at  all  im- 
probable that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  cared  for  by 
strangers  and  was  lost  to  the  disciples,  and  His  immedi- 
ate reappearance  in  spirit  to  them  would  make  them 
indifferent  about  the  lost  body.  It  was  only  when 
doubts  began  to  be  expressed  at  a  later  day  about  the 
reality  of  the  resurrection  that  such  attempts  as  that  of 
Luke,  xxiv,  40-43,  the  stories  about  the  guard  placed, 
the  stone  rolled  against  the  mouth  of  the  sepulchre, 
etc.,  were  found  necessary  ;  and  when  we  think  of  how 
a  report  of  even  an  ordinary  event  in  modern  times, 
such  as  a  murder,  gathers  accretions  as  it  passes  from 
one  reporter  to  another,  we  are  not  at  all  surprised 
that  the  same  thing  happened  in  olden  times;  the  won- 
der would  be  if  it  had  not  happened.  At  any  rate,  the 
foregoing  view  presents  far  less  difficulty  than  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body,  and  is  therefore  more  credible. 

It  is  thus  that  the  advocates  of  the  spiritual  resur- 
rection meet  and  answer  every  objection  of  the  tradi- 
tionalist ;  but  their  task  is  only  half  done,  for  the  skep- 
tic will  hesitate  to  accept  even  the  spiritual  resurrection. 
We  ask  him,  therefore,  to  consider  the  following  facts, 
which  to  an  unbiased  mind  are  quite  sufficient  to  prove 
Christ's  spiritual  resurrection  : 

First.  The  reappearance  of  a  departed  spirit  on  earth 
is  much  less  incredible  than  the  resuscitation  of  a  dead 
body.  Observe  :  it  is  not  said  that  such  an  event  is 
easy  to  believe,  bu.t  only  that  it  causes  less  of  a  mental 
shock  than  the  revival  of  a  dead  body  would,  and  why  ? 
Why,  because,  by  the  supposition,  the  spirit  has  simply 
changed  its  position,  its  sphere  of  action :  it  has  not 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  230k 

been  changed  in  nature,  as  a  dead  body  has ;  hence,  if 
we  admit  (as  science  does)  that  the  spirit  is  essentially 
distinct  from  the  body,  we  can  more  readily  believe  in 
the  return  of  a  departed  spirit  than  we  can  in  a  bodily 
resurrection.  This  is  a  fact  of  great  importance,  for 
the  real  difficulty  in  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is 
the  contradiction  of  natural  law  it  involves ;  for,  say 
what  we  will,  it  is  contrary  to  the  ordinary  course  of 
nature  that  a  dead  body  should  be  revived.  But  this 
can  not  be  said  with  equal  truth  of  the  return  of  a 
departed  spirit,  for,  granting  its  independence  of  the 
bodv,  we  can  not  see  how  its  manifestation  to  a 
friend  on  earth  should  disturb  nature  any  more  than 
its  first  habitation  of  the  body.  It  thus  becomes  less 
difficult  to  accept  Christ's  post-mortem  appearance  on 
earth. 

Second.  The  very  character  and  mission  of  Christ  are 
a  presumption  in  favor  of  His  resurrection.  He  is  by 
all  admitted  to  be  the  greatest  religious  Teacher  that  has 
ever  lived  (see  chapter  on  His  divinity) :  in  His  day  the 
belief  in  the  soul's  immortality  was  confined  to  a  few 
Jews  ;  and  hence  some  positive  assurance  of  the  life 
after  death  was  absolutely  necessary  to  the  establish- 
ment of  his  religion.  Gibbon  tells  us  how  wide-spread 
was  the  disbelief  in  immortality,  and,  as  is  well  known, 
he  places  the  assertion  of  this  doctrine  among  the 
causes  of  the  success  of  Christianitv.  "  The  writings 
of  Cicero,"  he  says,  "  represent  in  the  most  lively  col- 
ors the  ignorance,  the  errors,  and  the  uncertainty  of  the 
ancient  philosophers  with  regard  to  the  immortality 
of  the  soul.  ...  At  the  bar  and  in  the  senate  of 
Rome  the  ablest  orators  were  not  apprehensive  of 
giving  offense  to  their  hearers  by  exposing  that  doc- 


2301  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

trine  as  an  idle  and  extravagant  opinion,  which  was 
rejected  with  contempt  by  every  man  of  a  liberal  edu- 
cation and  understanding."'  *  Hence  a  religion  which 
asserts  as  strongly  as  Christ's  does  the  doctrine  of 
im mortality  must  give  some  positive  evidence  to 
prove  it ;  and  the  fact  that  it  succeeded  in  convincing 
the  skeptical  Jewish,  Greek,  and  Roman  world  of  its 
claim  on  this  head  is,  to  my  mind,  strong  evidence  of 
Christ's  resurrection.  Now,  this  unique  relation  of 
Jesus  to  the  human  race  as  their  great  spiritual  Teacher 
differentiates  His  post-mortem  appearance  on  earth 
from  modern  instances  of  alleged  spirit  manifestations. 
The  possibility  of  such  manifestations  even  now  can 
not  be  denied ;  but,  although  I  have  read  a  good  deal  of 
spiritualistic  literature,  I  for  one  have  not  yet  found 
sufficient  evidence  to  prove  spiritualism,  and  so  in  ad- 
vocating the  spiritual  resurrection  of  Christ  I  do  not 
indorse  modern  spiritualism.  However,  while  the  spir- 
itualists have  not  proved  their  chief  contention — name- 
ly, the  return  of  departed  spirits — they  have  considerably 
helped  to  destroy  materialism,  and  to  prove  the  semi- 
independence  of  the  soul  over  the  body  even  in  this 
life.  Thus  Prof.  F.  W.  Barrett,  in  a  paper  read  before 
the  "  English  Society  for  Psychical  Research,"  states  it 
as  his  "  conviction  that  at  any  rate  some  of  the  simpler 
phenomena  of  spiritualism  are  inexplicable  by  any 
cause  at  present  recognized  by  science."  Various  ex- 
periments with  private  "mediums,"  by  whom  tables 
were  moved  when  no  hand  was  on  them,  in  full  day- 
light, led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  "mind,  occasion- 
ally  and  unconsciously,  can  exert  direct  influence  upon 

*  "  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,"  vol.  i,  chap.  xv. 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  230m 

lifeless  matter"  (italics  his).  Prof.  Balfour  Stewart 
reviewed  Barrett's  paper,  and  pronounced  his  suggestion 
"  a  very  sagacious  one."  *  Prof.  Richard  A.  Proctor, 
with  whom  I  discussed  this  hypothesis,  thought  very 
favorably  of  it  because  of  Barrett's  high  scientific  stand- 
ing and  his  caution  in  investigation  and  speculation. 
Of  course,  this  is  only  a  hypothesis ;  but  the  fact  that 
such  eminent  scientists  as  those  mentioned  should  sug- 
gest such  a  theory  should  make  us  hesitate  to  reject  the 
proposition  of  a  departed  spirit's  manifesting  itself  to 
men  on  earth.  Add  to  this  another  fact,  that  of  mind- 
reading,  which  has  been  accepted  by  the  "  Society  for 
Psychical  Research "  and  by  many  eminent  psycholo- 
gists, and  we  mav  gather  from  these  hints  some  con- 
firmation  of  the  doctrine  we  are  now  considering. 
They  at  least  tend  to  show  the  reality  and  semi-inde- 
pendence of  the  soul,  and  reveal  a  large  unexplored 
field  of  psychical  research  which  should  prevent  all  dog- 
matism on  the  skeptical  side  of  this  great  question. 
Mind-reading  is  very  suggestive  as  to  the  possible 
method  of  communication  between  a  departed  spirit 
and  one  in  the  flesh. f 

But,  finally,  there  is  the  mass  of  historical  testimony 
to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  which  the  New  Testament, 
as  a  whole,  furnishes.  We  may  freely  admit  that  some 
of  this  testimony  is  not  all  that  could  be  desired,  but 
we  should  not,  therefore,  reject  it  as  utterly  worthless. 


*  "  Journal  of  English  Society  for  Psychical  Research,"  188G,  pp. 
24-44. 

f  I  know,  of  course,  that  mind-reading  is  explained  by  some  as 
due  to  a  close  observation  of  features,  muscular  contraction,  etc.,  but 
certain  facts  seem  to  justify  the  belief  in  a  more  direct  intercommu- 
nication between  minds. 


230n  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

This  is  never  done  in  the  legal  profession,  but  the  evi- 
dence is  carefully  sifted  and  the  verdict  is  rendered  ac- 
cordingly. And  so  in  the  case  before  us  :  let  the  accre- 
tions that  seem  to  have  gathered  around  the  kernel  of 
the  story  of  the  resurrection  be  stripped  off,  but  let  us 
admit  that  there  is  a  kernel  there.  As  already  stated, 
the  theory  of  visions — subjective  visions,  pure  halluci- 
nations— breaks  down  under  close  examination,  and  this 
is  the  only  theory  worthy  of  consideration.  Something 
extraordinary  must  have  happened  to  revive  the  shat- 
tered faith  and  courage  of  the  disciples,  and  there  is 
really  no  valid  objection  to  the  acceptance  of  the  spirit- 
ual resurrection  of  Jesus.  There  is  a  spirit  in  man  dis- 
tinct from  the  body  ;  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
death  destroys  this  spirit  (see  chapter  on  "  Immortality") ; 
in  death  it  simply  shuffles  off  the  mortal  fleshly  coil  and 
transfers  itself  to  another  sphere  of  action.  Jesus,  being 
the  founder  of  the  religion  of  humanity,  at  a  time  when 
immortality  was  scarcely  credited  at  all,  was  just  the 
Person  to  reveal  and  establish  this  great  truth  by  posi- 
tive evidence ;  and,  on  top  of  all  this  presumptive  evi- 
dence, we  have  the  positive  testimony  of  St.  Paul  and 
all  the  early  disciples  to  this  manifestation,  and  there- 
fore it  requires  less  credulity  to  accept  it  than  to 
reject  it. 

This  view  of  the  resurrection,  too,  is  in  harmony 
with  the  evolution  philosophy.  What  offends  the  scien- 
tist most  is  an  alleged  break  in  the  order  of  Nature,  and 
we  can  not  deny  that  the  resurrection  of  a  dead  body 
would  be  a  breakage  of  that  order;  indeed,  the  very 
fact  that  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Christ  is  claimed  to 
be  unique,  declares  it  to  be  a  violation  of  natural  order. 
But  the  new  view  does  not  involve  any  such  rent  in 


EVOLUTION  AND  MIRACLES.  230o 

Nature.  The  reappearance  of  a  depai'ted  spirit  on 
earth  would  merely  he  the  operation,  on  a  higher  plane, 
of  a  power  already  operant  in  Nature  •  it  would  dis- 
turb not  a  particle  in  the  universe. 

But  it  lias  been  said :  "  If  one  spirit  thus  manifests 
iself,  so  must  others  ;  there  must  be  a  universal  law  of 
spirit  manifestation ;  a  disconnected  instance  would  be  a 
violation  of  the  spiritual  order."  This  contention  over- 
looks the  essential  difference  between  the  physical  and 
the  spiritual  orders.  In  the  former,  unalterable,  un- 
changeable, necessary  forces  operate,  but  in  the  latter 
free-will — self-determination  is  the  distinctive  fact.  In 
other  words,  the  reappearance  of  a  departed  spirit  on 
earth  depends  partly  upon  the  will  of  that  spirit  and 
especially  upon  the  permission  of  the  Infinite  Spirit  ; 
and  I  for  one  can  readily  conceive  of  His  permitting  one 
spirit,  for  a  special  purpose,  to  return  from  the  unseen 
sphere,  while,  for  other  reasons,  other  spirits  should  not 
be  so  permitted. 

It  should  be  added,  however,  that  if  spiritualism 
should  prove  itself  to  be  true,  this  fact  would  not,  as 
some  imagine  it  would,  make  Christ's  manifestation 
after  death  of  less  importance. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  foregoing  brief  outline  of  the 
discussion  on  miracles  may  arouse  an  interest  in  my 
readers  to  look  further  into  this  interesting  and  impor- 
tant subject. 

Note. — Among  the  books  which  may  be  consulted  on  the  subject 
of  this  chapter  are :  1.  Advocates  of  the  popular  view — Mozley's 
"  Bampton  Lectures  on  Miracles,"  Row's  "  Bampton  Lectures  on 
Miracles,"  and  "  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists  "  ;  Fisher's  "  Grounds  of 
Theistic  Belief,"  chapters  iv  and  vi ;  Christlieb's  "  Modern  Doubt 
and  Christian  Belief  "  ;  Bushnell's  "  Nature  and  the  Supernatural "  ; 
Trench  "  On  Miracles,"  etc. 


230p  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

2.  Opponents  of  the  popular  view— Strauss,  Baur,  Renan,  Keim, 
Davidson,  Huxley,  Ewald,  Zeller,  "  Supernatural  Religion,"  two  vols. ; 
Longmans  &  Co.,  London,  1874  ;  Greg,  "  Creed  of  Christendom  "  ; 
John  Fiske's  "  Unseen  World,"  chapters  iii,  iv,  v  ;  Carpenter's  "  Men- 
tal Physiology,"  passim  ;  Dr.  Carpenter's  and  Tuke's  works  should 
be  specially  consulted  on  the  question  of  mental  healings. 


CHAPTER  II. 

EVOLUTION    AND    INSPIRATION. 

Archdeacon  Farrar,  in  the  seventh  lecture  of  his 
admirable  work  on  "  The  History  of  Interpretation " 
(Bampton  Lectures  for  1885),  gives  us  a  graphic  sketch 
of  the  decadence  of  rational  Biblical  interpretation  and 
of  the  rise  of  that  Bibliolatry  which  has,  like  the  upas- 
tree,  spread  itself  over  the  Lord's  vineyard  and  is  to- 
day poisoning  everything  with  its  deadly  shade.  All 
those  who  fancy  that  the  free  and  easy  handling  of  the 
Scriptures  which  has  thus  far  characterized  this  work  is 
sacrilege,  ought  to  read  this  able  work,  and  especially  the 
lecture  referred  to,  for  they  would  then  be  able  to  dis- 
tinguish between  slavery  to  tradition  and  reverence  for 
the  Bible. 

The  post-Reformation  epoch,  Dr.  Farrar  tells  us, 
"  was  retarded  and  its  labor  vitiated  by  a  threefold 
curse  :  the  curse  of  tyrannous  confessionalism  ;  the  curse 
of  exorbitant  systems ;  the  curse  of  contentious  bitter- 
ness. It  was  the  age  of  creeds,  symbols,  confessions, 
theological  systems,  rigid  formulae."  The  natural  re- 
sult was  twofold :  First,  a  dogmatic  inflexibility,  un- 
softened  by  Christian  love,  which  led  to  the  most  de- 
plorable contentions  and  dissensions  among  Christians  ; 
and,  secondly,  a  Bibliolatry  which,  while  it  professed 


232  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  honor  Holy  Scripture  by  its  irrational  worship,  really 
dishonored  it  by  treating  the  Bible  as  a  talisman  and 
a  fetich.  We  read  such  superstitious  phrases  as  that 
"  the  writers  of  Scripture  are  amanuenses  of  God,  hands 
of  Christ,  scribes  and  notaries  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  not 
even  instrumental  authors,  but  only  living  and  writing 
jpens.  Holy  Scripture  is  described,  not  as  the  record  of 
revelation,  but  as  revelation  itself.  Christianity,  which 
existed  so  many  years  before  a  single  Gospel  or  Epistle 
had  been  written,  was  robbed  of  its  power.  In  defiance 
of  every  historic  fact,  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostles 
was  regarded  as  the  annihilation  of  their  proper  indi- 
viduality. This  sort  of  dogmatism  became  more  and 
more  pernicious.  God's  presence  and  providence  in 
the  history  of  the  world  were  practically  ignored.  The 
Bible  was  spoken  of  as  '  a  divine  effluence,'  i  a  part  of 
God.' "  *  The  real  cause  of  this  Bibliolatry  is  clearly 
stated  by  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold.  "  Taunted  by  Eome 
with  their  divisions,  their  want  of  a  fixed  authority ', 
like  the  Church,  Protestants,"  he  says,  "  were  driven  to 
make  the  Bible  this  fixed  authority ;  and  so  the  Bible 
came  to  be  regarded  as  a  thing  all  of  a  piece,  endued 
with  talismanic  virtues.  It  came  to  be  regarded  as 
something  different  from  anything  it  had  originally 
ever  been,  or  primitive  times  had  ever  imagined  it  to 
be."  f  It  came  to  be  considered  "  a  book  let  down  out 
of  the  skies,  immaculate,  infallible,  oracular,"  and  yet 
this  notion  of  the  Bible  can  be  historically  traced  to 
heathenism.  u  We  read  in  one  of  the  historical  books 
of  the  Jews  (II  Maccabees,  ii,  13)  that  Nehemiah  found- 

*  Farrar's  "  History  of  Interpretation,"  p.  373,  etc. 

f  Matthew  Arnold's  "  Literature  and  Dogma,"  preface,  p.  xxv. 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION.  233 

ed  a  library  and  gathered  together  the  writings  con- 
cerning the  Kings  and  of  the  Prophets,  and  the  (songs) 
of  David  and  Epistles  of  Kings  concerning  temple 
gifts."  "  This  formation  of  a  national  library  was  real- 
ly the  germ  out  of  which  grew  the  Old  Testament.  It 
was  a  purely  civic  act  by  a  layman,  but  it  expressed 
the  honor  in  which  the  national  writings  were  coming 
to  be  held.  It  is  coincident  with  this  that  we  find  a 
priestly  movement  to  draw  a  sacred  line  around  the 
more  important  writings  of  the  nation.  Tradition  has 
credited  Ezra,  the  priestly  coadjutor  of  Nehemiah,  with 
the  first  formation  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon.  The 
two  traditions  express  one  and  the  same  fact  from  the 
secular  and  ecclesiastical  point  of  view.  In  the  exile 
(at  Babylon  in  the  sixth  century  b.  c,  II  Kings,  xxv, 
Ezra,  etc.)  the  stricken  nation  came  to  value  and  honor 
its  national  heritage  as  never  before.  Its  literary  sense 
was  quickened  by  close  contact  with  the  civilization 
whose  great  library  constituted  one  of  the  chief  treas- 
ures of  the  central  city.  It  was  natural  that  on  their 
return  to  their  native  land  the  Jews  should  gather  their 
race- writings  and  found  a  national  library.  A  large 
part  of  these  writings,  and  that  part  largely  drawn  from 
very  ancient  times,  was  composed  of  judicial  decisions, 
legislative  codes,  etc.,  around  which  veneration  properly 
gathered.  This  veneration  was  heightened  by  the 
popular  traditions  which  assigned  to  Moses  the  bulk  of 
their  legislation,  and  traced  it  through  him  to  Jehovah 
himself.  During  the  exile  a  remarkable  priestly  devel- 
opment, which  had  been  running  on  through  two  cent- 
uries at  least,  culminated  in  a  completely  organized 
hierarchy  and  an  elaborate  cultus. 

"In  the  process  of  this  final  development  in  Babylonia 


234  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

the  legislation  and  histories  of  the  nation  were  worked 
over  by  priestly  hands,  in  the  priestly  spirit.  The  law 
of  Moses  was  now  for  the  first  time  completely  set 
before  the  people,  and  on  the  restoration  to  Judea,  was 
made  the  law  of  the  land.  It  became,  therefore,  in  a 
new  sense  sacred.  The  fresh,  free  inspirations  of  the 
prophets — inspirations  most  real  and  divine — died  out 
in  the  exile,  smothered  partly  by  this  priestly  develop- 
ment. 

"  When  no  living  prophet  arose  to  make  men  hear 
the  voice  of  God,  men  had  to  hearken  for  that  voice  in 
the  words  of  the  dead  prophets.  In  the  synagogues  or 
meeting-houses  which  developed  during  the  exile,  when 
the  holy  temple  was  in  ruins,  and  which,  having  been 
found  useful,  were  continued  in  the  restoration,  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  were  read  each  Sabbath.  The 
true  writings  of  the  chief  prophets  had,  therefore,  to  be 
indicated.     Thus  came  the  Canon  of  the  prophets. 

"  The  process  of  exaltation  was  at  work,  and  contin- 
ued thenceforth  through  the  national  history,  increasing 
as  the  life  of  the  nation  ebbed.  It  was  the  period  im- 
mediately following  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
.Romans  (a.  d.  70),  which  busied  itself  in  closing  the 
Canon  of  Jewish  Scriptures.  Death  bound  up  the 
Bible.  No  new  chapters  could  be  added,  because  there 
was  no  more  life  to  write  them.  In  its  dotage  this 
noble  nation  became  known  by  its  superstitious  rever- 
ence for  the  law  as  '  the  people  of  the  book.'  Learned 
doctors  gravely  taught  their  pupils  that  '  God  himself 
studies  the  law  for  the  first  three  hours  of  every  day.'  "  * 

*  Dr.  Heber  Newton,  "  Right  and  Wrong  Uses  of  the  Bible,"  pp. 
29-32 ;  Ewald,  "  History  of  Israel,"  vol.  v ;  Dr.  William  Smith,  "  Old 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION.  235 

After  the  formation  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon, 
thus  briefly  sketched,  a  hedge  was  built  about  the  law 
by  the  Pharisees,  Scribes,  and  Rabbis,  that  sprang  from 
the  great  Synagogue  of  Ezra,  and  a  most  deplorable  Bib- 
liolatry  resulted.  But,  although  we  read  in  I  Maccabees, 
xii,  9,  of  the  u  Holy  Books  of  Scripture,"  yet  we  do  not 
find  a  rigid  theory  of  inspiration  until  we  come  to  the 
writings  of  Philo  Judseus.  He  "  is  the  first  who  seeks 
to  give  a  theory  of  inspiration,  and  he  does  so  by  bring- 
ing the  reflections  of  Plato  upon  the  pagan  inspiration 
(or  fjuavta)  to  explain  the  Jewish  doctrine.  Following 
Plato,  Philo  says  that  inspiration  is  a  kind  of  "  ecstasy," 
and  he  seems  to  imply  that  the  degree  of  inspiration  is 
greater  in  proportion  to  the  unconsciousness  or  at  least 
the  passivity  of  the  man  inspired." 

The  prophet,  he  says,  "  does  not  speak  any  words  of 
his  own,  he  is  only  the  instrument  of  God  who  inspires 
and  speaks  through  him  "  ;  but  he  says  "  that  there  are 
degrees  of  inspiration,  and  that  all  portions  of  Scripture 
are  not  equally  inspired  or  at  least  have  not  the  same 
depth  of  inspiration."  * 

Thus,  the  superstitious  reverence  for  the  Sacred 
Books,  which  was  begotten  by  the  Babylonian  Exile,  ulti- 
mately developed  into  "  a  recklessly  invented  theory  of 
mechanical  inspiration"  in  the  hands  of  Philo,  who  bor- 
rowed it  from  Heathen  Philosophy.  This  theory  passed 
on  from  one  generation  to  another,  and,  finally,  in  the 
post-Kef ormation  epoch,  it  completely  triumphed.  I 
say  "  completely,"  for  during  the  preceding  ages  there 

Testament   History,"  chap,  xxv,   and  "  New  Testament   History," 
Book  I. 

*  "  Encylopasdia    Britannica,"    article,    "  Inspiration ; "    Farrar 
"History  of  Interpretation,"  p.  153,  etc. 
12 


236  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

had  been  more  than  one  noble  though  spasmodic  re- 
action against  this  heathen  dogma.  Since,  then,  we 
can  thus  historically  trace  the  theory  of  verbal  dictation 
to  heathen  philosophy — since  it  can  be  shown  to  be 
of  a  piece  with  those  notions  which  the  various  hea- 
then nations  entertain  concerning  their  Sacred  Books — 
and,  above  all,  since  the  Bible  itself  refutes  it,  surely 
we  ought  to  be  thanked  rather  than  blamed  for  tearing 
down  this  human  superstructure  which  has  been  built 
round  the  inviolable  shrine  of  Holy  Scripture.  "  For 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  Europe,  Christian  people 
have  the  knowledge  by  which  they  can  correct  their 
ideas  about  the  Bible,  in  what  may  be  called  a  Science 
of  Comparative  Bibliolatry." 

By  the  labors  of  Prof.  Max  Muller  and  others,  the 
Sacred  Books  of  the  East  (India,  Persia,  etc.)  are  now 
within  the  easy  reach  of  all,  and  any  one  may  examine 
for  himself  these  "  Bibles  of  Humanity."  We  find 
precisely  the  same  notions  current  in  each  race  about  its 
Bible  that  we  have  cherished  concerning  our  own  Bible. 
"  According  to  the  orthodox  view  of  Indian  theologi- 
ans,5' says  Prof.  Max  Muller,  "  not  a  single  line  of  the 
Yeda  (the  Hindu  Bible)  was  the  work  of  human  au- 
thors. 

"  The  whole  Yeda  is  in  some  way  or  other  the  work 
of  the  Deity ;  and  even  those  who  received  the  revela- 
tion, or,  as  they  express  it,  those  who  saw  it,  were  not 
supposed  to  be  ordinary  mortals,  but  beings  raised  above 
'the  level  of  common  humanity,  and  less  liable,  therefore, 
to  error  in  the  reception  of  revealed  truth.  The  views 
entertained  of  revelation  by  the  orthodox  theologians 
of  India  are  far  more  minute  and  elaborate  than  those 
of  the  most  extreme  advocates  of  verbal  inspiration  in 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION.  237 

Europe.  The  human  element  is  driven  out  of  every 
corner  or  hiding-place  ;  and,  as  the  Yeda  is  held  to  have 
existed  in  the  mind  of  the  Deity  before  the  beginning 
of  time,  every  allusion  to  historical  events,  of  which 
there  are  not  a  few,  is  explained  away  with  a  zeal  and 
ingenuity  worthy  of  a  better  cause.  .  .  .  But,"  he  adds 
(and  his  words  apply  to  our  Bible),  "let  me  state  at 
once  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  hymns  (the  Yeda)  to 
warrant  such  extravagant  theories.  In  many  a  hymn, 
the  author  says  plainly  that  he  or  his  friends  made  it  to 
please  the  gods,"  etc.*  We  find  essentially  the  same 
notions  current  among  the  Mohammedans  respecting 
their  Bible — the  Koran.  "Mohammedan  doctors  of 
divinity  divided  into  fiercely  contesting  parties  over  the 
question  whether  the  Koran  was  created  or  uncreated, 
the  latter  theory,  as  most  highly  magnifying  their  Sa- 
cred Book,  of  course  becoming  the  orthodox  view."  + 

"  Bibliolatry  is  pushed  to  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  in 
these  pagan  worships  of  their  Sacred  Books.  Men  will 
see  their  folly  in  the  reflected  light  of  these  kindred 
follies,  and  another  superstition  will  disappear  from 
Christendom." 

But  not  only  is  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration 
heathenish ;  it  is  contradicted  by  the  Bible  itself.  u  The 
sacred  writers  thrust  upon  the  attention  of  all  those  who 
are  not  blind  the  traces  of  human  imperfection."  "  The 
Old  Testament  historians  contradict  each  other  in  facts 
and  figures,  tell  the  same  story  in  different  ways,  locate 
the  same  incident  at  different  periods,  ascribe  the  same 

*  "  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,"  i,  p.  18. 
f  "  Encylopaxlia  Britannica,"  article  "  Mohammedanism,"  Part 
III,  "Koran." 


238  EVOLUTION    CF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

deeds  to  different  men,  quote  statistics  which  are  plainly 
exaggerated,  mistake  poetic  legend  for  sober  prose,  re- 
peat the  marvelous  tales  of  tradition  as  literal  history, 
and  give  us  statements  which  can  not  be  read  as  scien- 
tific facts  without  denying  our  latest  and  most  authori- 
tative knowledge."  Literary  criticism,  however  imper- 
fect it  may  yet  be,  has  clearly  shown  "  marks  of  a  patient 
and  noble  literary  workmanship  "  in  all  parts  of  Holy 
Scripture.  "The  historical  books  (Kings,  Chronicles, 
etc.)  are  seen  to  be  the  work  of  many  hands  in  many 
ages.  They  gather  up  the  popular  traditions  of  the  race, 
carry  down  on  their  slow  streams  fragments  from  such 
far  back  ages  that  we  have  almost  the  clew  to  their 
story — glacial  bowlders  that  now  lie  strangely  out  of 
place  in  the  rich  fields  of  later  eras ;  songs  of  rude  pe- 
riods, Nature-myths,  legends  of  semi-fabulous  heroes, 
folk-lore  of  the  tribes,  scraps  from  long-forgotten  books, 
entries  from  ancient  annals,  pages  torn  from  the  histo- 
ries of  other  peoples  to  fill  out  the  story ;  the  whole 
worked  over  many  times  by  many  hands  in  many  gen- 
erations." The  Pentateuch,  or  first  five  books  of  the 
Bible,  commonly  ascribed  to  Moses,  are  now  shown  to 
be  the  work  of  different  hands,  and  by  no  means  an  in- 
fallible work.* 

"  The  prophecies  break  up  into  fragmentary  collec- 
tions, in  which  the  words  of  many  different  and  obscure 
prophets  are  grouped  under  the  name  of  some  great 
prophet.*)*     The  Psalter  (or  Book  of  Psalms)  separates 

*  See,  for  popular  exposition  of  advanced  criticism,  "  Encyclope- 
dia Britannica,"  articles  "  Pentateuch,"  "  Israel,"  and  "  Bible."  Cf. 
Ewald,  "  History  of  Israel,"  vol.  i ;  Kuenen,  "  Inquiry  into  the  Ori- 
gin and  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch,"  etc.,  etc. 

f  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  articles  "  Isaiah,"  "  Daniel,"  etc. 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION  239 

into  several  books  of  sacred  song,  dating  from  different 
periods.  They  repeat  the  same  psalm,  and  divide  one 
psalm  into  two,  and  join  two  into  one,  on  principles  by 
no  means  apparent  to  us."  In  short,  "our  critical 
glasses  bring  out,  clear  and  strong,  the  fact  of  a  human 
literary  craft  in  these  books,  the  signs  on  every  hand  of 
the  labor  of  brain  and  skill  of  pen,  through  which  the 
literature  of  a  venerable  nation,  and  of  the  infant  church 
born  of  it,  took  slow  shape  into  our  Bible."  * 

Now,  of  course,  the  traditionalist  would  urge  just 
here  the  common  but  fallacious  "argument"  against 
the  advanced  critics,  namely,  that  they  differ  among 
themselves,  and  hence  we  can  not  trust  their  conclusions. 
To  which  we  reply :  Whatever  may  be  the  differences 
of  opinion  among  the  critics  as  to  certain  minor  points, 
yet  they  have  proved  to  demonstration  that  there  are 
many  numerical,  historical,  and  even  moral  defects  in 
the  Bible,  and  so  the  theory  of  verbal  dictation  is  utterly 
exploded.  This  is  all-sufficient  for  our  purpose.  Each 
one  must  study  for  himself  the  writings  of  the  various 
critics  and  accept  or  reject  their  views,  according  to  the 
strength  or  weakness  of  the  arguments  advanced,  but 
we  may  safely  defy  any  one  to  prove  the  literal  infal- 
libility of  the  Bible,  if  any  one  familiar  with  the  results 
of  modern  criticism  could  be  so  rash  as  to  attempt 
this.  Even  readers  of  magazines,  such  as  "  The  North 
American  Review,"  etc.,  are  familiar  with  "  the  mistakes 
of  Moses,"  the  prevalence  of  polygamy  and  slavery 
among  the  patriarchs — the  inspired  saints  of  Jehovah — 
wars  of  extermination  under  Joshua  and  others,  and  so 


*  Rev.  Ileber  Newton,  "  Right  and  Wrong  Uses  of  the  Bible," 
chap,  i,  §  III. 


240  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

on.  No  thoughtful  reader  of  the  Psalms  can  fail  to 
observe  the  purely  human  spirit  in  those  bitter  denun- 
ciations and  invocations  of  God's  wrath  against  his  en- 
emies which  mar  many  portions  of  this  otherwise  beau- 
tiful and  edifying  bit  of  ancient  poetry.  And  what 
thoughtful  reader  has  not  been  deeply  pained  by  the 
"  Song  of  Deborah  "  (Judges,  v)  over  the  treachery  of 
"  Jael,  wife  of  Heber  the  Kenite  "  ?  The  thoroughly 
human  spirit  is  here  too  evident  to  be  denied,  and  yet 
this  is  only  one  of  many  such  instances  which  might  be 
pointed  out  were  we  disposed  to  do  so.*  But  it  is  not 
necessary  to  do  this.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show 
why  we  must  reject  the  verbal  infallibility  of  the  Bible, 
and  indeed  it  would  hardly  seem  necessary  to  dwell  on 
this  point  were  it  not  a  fact  that,  while  many  of  our 
most  conservative  theological  writers  reject  verbal  in- 
spiration, the  majority  of  the  laity,  perhaps,  accept  it, 
or  try  to  accept  it. 

There  are  various  other  theories  of  inspiration — 
modifications  of  the  theory  of  verbal  dictation — which 
are  admirably  dealt  with  by  Canon  Bow  in  the  last  of 
his  "  Bampton  Lectures,"  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  con- 
sider them,  since  my  object  is  simply  to  refute  the  doc- 
trine of  verbal  inspiration,  and  to  enunciate  what 
seems  to  be  the  only  view  which  modern  research  will 
allow  us  to  hold. 

To  begin  at  the  beginning:  The  primitive  man,  as 
we  have  seen,  had  no  such  lofty  ideas  of  God  and  the 
soul's  nature  and  destiny  as  we  have.  He  probably 
got  his  idea  of  the  soul  as  distinct  from  the  body  from 
the  dream  ;  but,  however  this  may  be,  when  he  did  get 

*  Dean  Stanley's  "  History  of  the  Jewish  Church,"  lect.  xiv. 


EVOLUTION'  AND  INSPIRATION.  241 

this  notion  it  soon  branched  out  into  various  ideas  as  to 
the  operation  of  the  disembodied  spirit.  Certain  dis- 
eases— epilepsy,  insanity,  etc.  — were  supposed  to  be  due 
to  the  presence  of  a  foreign  spirit  which  had  taken  pos- 
session of  the  subject.  But  "  if  a  man's  body  may  be 
entered  by  a  wicked  soul  of  the  dead  enemy,  may  it  not 
be  entered  by  a  friendly  soul  ?  If  the  struggles  of  the 
epileptic,  the  ravings  of  the  delirious,  the  self -injuries 
of  the  insane,  are  caused  by  an  indwelling  demon,  then 
must  not  the  transcendent  power  of  marvelous  skill,  oc- 
casionally displayed,  be  caused  by  an  indwelling  benefi- 
cent spirit  ?  .  .  .  These  questions  the  savage  consistent- 
ly answers  in  the  affirmative. 

"  That  manifestations  of  unusual  will  and  strength 
are  thus  accounted  for,  we  find  proofs  among  early  tra- 
ditions." *  And  Mr.  Spencer  gives  us  instances  of  such 
ideas  (familiar  to  all  students  of  ancient  history)  from 
the  Greeks  (Homer),  Egyptians,  etc.,  which  show  that 
— to  quote  another  writer — "  artistic  powers  and  poetic 
talents,  gifts  of  prediction,  the  warmth  of  love,  and  the 
battle  frenzy,  were  all  ascribed  to  the  power  of  the  god 
possessing  the  man  inspired."  Philo,  as  stated  above, 
borrowed  Plato's  views  on  this  subject  and  so  Hea- 
thenism and  Judaism  joined  hands.  "  The  early  Chris- 
tian Church  seems  to  have  simply  taken  over  the 
Jewish  views  (thus  heathenized)  about  the  inspiration 
of  the  Old  Testament  ;  and,  when  the  New  Testa- 
ment Canon  was  complete,  the  Fathers  transferred  the 
same  characteristics  to  the  New  Testament  writings 
also."  Many  of  the  most  eminent  fathers  had  been 
primarily  heathen  philosophers,  and  so  it  was  natural 

*  Spencer's  "  Principles  of  Sociology,"  vol.  i,  chap,  xviii. 


24:2  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

that  their  philosophic  views  should  influence  their  the- 
ology * 

Thus  we  may  see  how  naturally  the  idea  of  divine  in- 
spirations may  have  arisen.  Beginning  with  the  notion 
that  a  foreign  spirit — or  "  other-self  " — took  possession 
of  a  man,  this  opinion  would  be  slowly  differentiated 
into  the  idea  of  a  superhuman  being's  ruling  the  man 
(for  were  not  many  of  his  words  and  actions  superhu- 
man ?),  and  then  this  being  would  come  to  be  worshiped 
as  a  god  ;  and,  h'nally,  these  "  gods-many  "  would  be  con- 
solidated, so  to  speak,  into  one  God,  to  whom,  of  course, 
all  thoughts  and  events  would  necessarily  be  ascribed,, 
"What  shall  we  think  of  this  philosophy  ?  Shall  we  be- 
lieve that  men  may  be  really  possessed  by  foreign  spir- 
its ?  Surely  not.  Shall  we  reject  the  entire  notion  of 
divine  inspiration  ?  That,  of  course,  depends  on  what 
is  meant  by  "  inspiration."  If  by  this  term  we  are  to 
understand  that  a  voice  from  the  skies  spoke  to  the  in- 
spired man,  we  shall  hardly  accept  it.  But  if,  with  the 
Eev.  Frederick  Myers,  we  hold  that  the  phrases  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  "  of  the  Prophets,  and  "  The  Lord  said 
unto  Moses,"  simply  "signify  a  deep  and  true  impres- 
sion on  the  prophet's  mind,  that  what  he  was  saying 
was  assuredly  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God "  t 
— if  this  be  inspiration,  then  we  readily  accept  it.  In 
short,  the  only  view  of  inspiration  which  an  enlight- 
ened philosophy  will  allow  us  to  hold  is  that  which  con- 
siders it  a  "functional  endowment?  %  The  spirit  of 
man  is  a  spark  flashed  forth  from  the  Eternal  Light — 


*  " Encyclopaedia  Britanniea,"  article  "Inspiration." 

f  Frederick  Myers,  "  Catholic  Thoughts  on  the  Bible,"  p.  76,  etc. 

%  Canon  Row's  "  Bainpton  Lectures,"  p.  432,  etc. 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION.  243 

an  "image"  of  the  Divine  Spirit— and  as  such  it  par- 
takes of  his  nature.     God  sends  great  philosophers,  like 
Aristotle,  Socrates,  and  Newton,  into  the  world  ;  and 
poets,  like  Homer,  Milton,  and  Shakespeare ;  and  war- 
riors, like  Alexander,  Caesar,  and  Napoleon ;  and  law- 
givers, like  Moses,  Solon,  and  Lycurgus.    All  such  men 
possess  peculiar  "  gifts  "  which  come  from  one  and  the 
same  Divine  Spirit  (I   Corinthians,  xii,  4-11).     They 
are  pre-eminently  endowed  with  the  philosophic,  poetic, 
military,  and  legal  faculties  or  functions,  and  they  speak 
with  authority  in  their  various  spheres.     Why,  then, 
should  we  hesitate  to  believe  that  God  specially  endows 
certain  men  with  the  gift  of  religious  insight — an  Abra- 
ham, an  Isaiah,  a  Paul,  a  Job,  a  Buddha,  a  Zoroaster,  a 
Confucius,  a  Socrates?     We  should  not  hesitate  to  be- 
lieve this,  for  such  an  endowment  would  be  simply  an- 
other instance  of  that  "  division  of  labor  "   (to  use  an 
economic  term)  which  marks  all  creation.     Even  in  the 
individual  we  have  various  organs  to  perform  different 
functions — the  eye  does  not  do  the  work  of  the  hand, 
nor  does  the  memory  discharge  the  functions  of  the 
will.      How  much   more,    then,  should    the    different 
members  of  the  social  organism  perform  special  func- 
tions!    Of  course,  this  view  makes  inspiration  a  "nat- 
ural" function  of  the  human  spirit,  but  it  is  no  less 
Divine  in  its  origin— unless,  indeed,  we  deny  that  Na- 
ture is  of  God.     The  theory  which  teaches  that  "  the 
inspiration   of   Holy  Scripture  is   of  the   nature  of  a 
miracle  "  v  is  either  too  vague  for  comprehension  or  it 
is  not  provable.     The  Eev.  Brownlow  Maitland,  M.  A., 
in  an  admirable  little  book  entitled  "Skepticism   and 

*  Bishop  Harold  Browne,  "  Essay  on  Inspiration,"  p.  37,  etc. 


244  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Faith,"  *  devotes  a  chapter  to  the  discussion  of  the 
question  "  Is  Revelation  possible  ?  "  and  the  word  "  reve- 
lation "  seems  to  be  used  as  a  synonym  of  "  inspira- 
tion." The  skeptic  with  whom  the  author  argues  says : 
"  It  is  easy  to  talk  in  a  general  way  of  our  receiving 
communicatious  from  without,  and  being  able  to  discern 
whence  they  come  to  us.  But  when  the  person  from 
whom  they  purport  to  issue  is  both  unseen  and  un- 
known, you  will,  if  you  proceed  accurately,  according 
to  the  strict  laws  of  induction,  find  yourself  at  a  loss 
to  trace  those  communications  to  their  real  origin. 

"  There  are  only  two  ways  in  which  any  conceiv- 
able revelation  can  be  presented  to  our  apprehension  : 
it  must  come  either  direct  to  the  mind  or  through  the 
organs  of  sense.  Suppose  it  to  come  direct  to  your 
mind.  In  that  case  your  earliest  knowledge  of  it  will 
be  in  your  consciousness  of  it  in  your  thoughts.  You 
find  yourself  thinking  it ;  it  is  only  as  your  thought, 
your  idea,  that  you  know  it  at  all;  from  your  own 
thoughts  you  can  not  disentangle  it.  How  you  came 
to  think  it  you  can  not  possibly  know — whether  it  sprang 
up  of  itself  in  your  mind,  or  were  excited  or  infused 
from  without ;  on  the  question  of  its  origin  it  can  give 
you  no  information. 

"  To  assert,  therefore,  that  it  came  to  you  from  God 
would  be  to  invent  an  hypothesis  which  is  utterly  inca- 
pable of  verification.  Or,  suppose  that  the  revelation  is 
presented  to  you  through  your  organs  of  sense.  A  voice 
strikes  on  your  ear,  or  a  visible  phenomenon  is  ex- 
hibited to  your  eye.  That  is  all  that  you  are  conscious 
of ;  a  sensation,  an  impression  on  your  senses,  nothing 

*  New  York,  Pott,  Young  &  Co.,  1887. 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION.  245 

more.  What  this  means,  or  what  caused  it,  can  only 
be  a  matter  of  inference,  of  guess,  on  your  part.  The 
impression  which  you  experience  may  be  an  illusive 
one,  for  aught  you  know,  like  the  impressions  expe- 
rienced in  h all un cinations  or  dreams.  Or,  if  it  has  a 
cause  in  some  reality  outside  you,  what  that  cause  is 
you  can  not  ascertain."  Of  course,  the  obvious  answer 
to  this  latter  mode  of  argument  is,  that  it  proves  too 
much ;  it  has  no  goal,  as  Mr.  Maitland  rightly  observes, 
"  short  of  universal  skepticism."  If  we  accept  it,  we 
can  not  know  anything  outside  our  own  immediate 
circle  of  consciousness.  Our  only  means  of  knowing 
of  (even)  the  existence  of  one  another  are  our  organs  of 
sense — sight,  hearing,  touch,  etc. — and  if  we  suppose 
that  these  deceive  us,  we  are  landed  in  absolute  skep- 
ticism, and  this  it  is  ]3ractically  impossible  to  accept. 
Hence  we  may  rationally  infer  that  a  theory  wThich 
involves  a  practical  impossibility  is  false. 

The  real  question,  therefore,  is,  Have  we  sufficient 
evidence  that  God  has  spoken  to  man  ?  I  mean,  of 
course,  as  we  understand  the  word  "  speech."  For  in- 
stance :  Can  it  be  proved  that  St.  Paul,  on  the  way  to 
Damascus,  heard  a  Yoice  and  saw  a  Form  outside 
himself?  Did  a  word  really  come  to  him  from  an 
objective  spirit?  Owing  to  the  uncertain  authorship 
of  the  Acts,  and  the  ambiguous  references  to  this 
"  vision"  in  Galatians  (ii,  16),  we  must,  at  least,  admit 
that  this  question  can  not  be  dogmatically  answered  in 
the  affirmative.  And  since  this  is  perhaps  one  of  the 
best  attested  instances  of  a  Divine  Yoice  speaking  to 
man,  we  must  set  aside  as  "  not  proven "  all  such 
alleged  instances.  Then,  as  to  the  skeptic's  first  argu- 
ment, viz.,  granting  that   a   direct   revelation    to  the 


24:6  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

human  mind  is  possible,  yet  thoughts  thus  communi- 
cated would  be  so  inextricably  blended  with  one's  own 
thoughts  that  he  could  not  tell  whence  they  came— 
this  argument,  Mr.  Maitland  frankly  admits,  is  logically 
unanswerable.     What,  then,  shall  we  think  or  say  on 
this  subject  ?     Why,  he  answers  :  "  Our  whole  mental 
constitution  is  not  summed   up  in  the  logical  under- 
standing.     We   are   endowed   with   a  conscience  that 
witnesses  for  the  authority  of  a  moral  law ;  and  a  spirit- 
ual faculty  which   can  think  of   God,  can  reverence 
and  worship  Him,  and  it  is  to  this  moral  and  spiritual 
faculty  that  God  addresses  himself.-'*     Now,  this  is 
precisely  my  own  view.     We  can  not  be  sure  that  the 
Creator  has  ever  literally  "  spoken  "  to  man  ;  we  can 
not  prove  that  the  great  thoughts  about  God  and  re- 
ligion which  characterize  the  writings  of  the  religious 
seers  of  all  ages  were  directly  infused  into  their  minds 
in  some  mysterious  way  by  the  Creator,  but  we  are 
sure  that  "  the  spirit  of  man  is  the  candle  of  the  Lord  " 
(Proverbs,  xx,  27) :   man's  spiritual  nature  must  have 
sprung  from  the  Eternal  Spirit,  and  hence  it  partakes 
of  the  nature  of  that  Spirit ;  it  is  itself  a  partial  revela- 
tion of  God.     "Every  good  gift,  therefore,  and  every 
perfect  gift  is  from  above,  and  cometh  down  from  the 
Father  of  lights  "  (James,  i,  17). 

Taking  the  view,  then,  that  God  sends  men  into  the 
world  endowed  with  special  gifts  of  religious  insight, 
the  next  question  is,  Are  we  to  accept  their  "  revela- 
tions "  or  deliveries  as  absolutely  infallible  f  Let  us 
take  an  example — St.  Paul.  Are  we  to  accept  all  his 
deliveries  as  absolutely  infallible  and  binding  on  our- 


*  "  Skepticism  and  Faith,"  pp.  104-127. 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION  247 

selves  ?  That  depends,  of  course,  on  what  those  deliv- 
eries are,  and  whether  they  are  true.  If,  for  instance, 
St.  Paul  teaches  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Adam's 
fall  and  man's  total  depravity,  then  his  infallibility  is 
disproved  by  science.  Or,  to  take  a  more  unquestion- 
able instance,  if  lie  taught  that  Christ  would  return  to 
earth  within  a  few  years  after  his  death,  then  history 
proves  him  to  have  been  mistaken.  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  the  question  of  a  religious  teacher's  infalli- 
bility is  simply  a  question  oifact  which  must  be  settled 
by  an  appeal  to  his  actual  deliveries  and  not  by  any 
a  priori  considerations  ;  and  we  have  no  other  faculty 
than  reason  and  conscience  by  which  to  judge  of  reve- 
lation itself.  There  are  undoubtedly  many  statements 
in  the  Bible  which  we  have  ample  reason  to  believe  in- 
fallibly true,  but  whether  all  its  statements  are  infallibly 
true  is  precisely  the  point  to  be  proved,  and  we  have 
already  seen  that  this  can  not  be  done.  However 
loathsome,  therefore,  may  be  the  task,  yet  we  must 
use  our  reason  in  the  study  of  the  Bible — we  must 
discriminate.  Even  Prof.  Huxley  can  tell  us :  "  In 
the  eighth  century  b.  c,  in  the  heart  of  a  world  of 
idolatrous  polytheists,  the  Hebrew  prophets  put  forth 
a  conception  of  religion  which  appears  to  me  to  be  as 
wonderful  an  inspiration  of  genius  as  the  art  of  Phidias 
or  the  science  of  Aristotle.  '  And  what  doth  the  Lord 
require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and 
to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God  ? '  (Micah,  vi,  8).  If  any 
so-called  religion  takes  away  from  this  great  saying  of 
Micah,  I  think  it  wantonly  mutilates ;  while  if  it  adds 
thereto,  I  think  it  obscures  the  perfect  ideal  of  religion. 
But  what  extent  of  knowledge,  what  acuteness  of  scien- 
tific criticism,  can  touch  this,  if  any  one  possessed  of 


248  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

knowledge  or  acuteness  could  be  absurd  enough  to 
make  the  attempt?  Will  the  progress  of  research 
prove  that  justice  is  worthless  and  mercy  hateful  ?  Will 
it  ever  soften  the  bitter  contrast  between  our  actions 
and  our  aspirations,  or  show  us  the  bounds  of  the  uni- 
verse, and  bid  us  say,  'Go  to,  now  we  comprehend  the 
Infinite.'  "  * 

In  these  words  Prof.  Huxley  clearly  states,  first,  the 
sort  of  religion,  and,  secondly,  the  sort  of  inspiration, 
which  the  truly  scientific  mind  is  disposed  to  accept — 
namely,  a  religion  of  justice,  mercy,  and  humility,  and 
an  inspiration  which  consists  in  a  functional  endow- 
ment, a  native  faculty,  by  which  the  man  so  endowed 
is  enabled  to  grasp  more  clearly  than  others  the  great 
truths  of  religion.  But  I  quote  him  mainly  to  show 
that  even  an  agnostic  philosopher  does  not  hesitate  to 
attribute  infallible  truths  to  the  holy  men  of  the  Bible. 
No  extent  of  knowledge,  no  acuteness  of  criticism,  can 
ever  touch  certain  grand  truths  therein  taught ;  and  so 
the  only  question  is,  Whatar^  those  unassailable  truths? 
— a  question  which  every  one  must  settle  for  himself  ; 
and,  with  an  open  Bible,  and  an  honest  heart,  and  a 
level  head,  and  an  unbefogged  mind,  he  will  have  com- 
paratively little  difficulty  in  finding  those  truths;  or, 
rather,  to  quote  Coleridge,  they  will  "find  him." 
Even  an  Ingersoll  finds  unassailable  {alias  infallible) 
truths  in  the  Bible.  "Every  good  and  noble  senti- 
ment," he  says,  "  uttered  in  the  Bible  is  still  good  and 
noble.  Every  fact  remains.  All  that  is  good  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  retained.     The  Lord's  Prayer 


*  "  Order  of  Creation."    Controversy  between  Gladstone,  Hux- 
ley, etc.,  p.  62.     "  Truth-Seeker  Company,"  New  York. 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION.  249 

is  not  affected.  The  grandeur  of  self-denial,  the  nobil- 
ity of  forgiveness,  and  the  ineffable  splendor  of  mercj 
are  still  with  us."  * 

Since,  then,  even  the  agnostic  freethinkers  admit 
that  all  truth  is  infallible,  and  that  the  Bible  contains 
many  truths,  albeit  the  wheat  is  mingled  with  the  chaff, 
the  only  remaining  question  is,  How  much  truth  is 
there  in  the  Bible  ?  If  we  find  truths  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, so  far  its  author  was  infallible.  If  we  find 
truths  in  the  Psalms,  the  Prophecies,  the  Gospels,  the 
Epistles,  so  far  their  authors  were  infallible,  and  no 
further. 

This  is  the  simplest  way  of  dealing  with  the  ques- 
tion of  inspiration.  We  can  never  prove  on  a  priori 
principles  the  inspiration  or  infallibility  of  a  man.  Let 
us,  therefore,  urge  that  God  sends  religious  as  well  as 
philosophic  and  poetic  geniuses  into  the  world ;  and, 
although  they  are  not  absolutely  infallible,  yet  so  far  as 
they  discover  and  reveal  truth  they  are  infallible.  But, 
of  course,  the  thoughtful  reader  would  ask  the  author, 
Was  Christ  only  partially  infallible  ?  !No  one  can  give 
a  dogmatic  answer  to  this  question,  for  our  Lord  has  not 
left  us  his  teaching  in  his  own  name,  and  the  accounts 
which  his  disciples  have  left  us  are  their  opinions  and 
reminiscences  of  Him,  not  certainly  and  always  his 
words.  For  my  own  part,  I  am  content  to  know  that 
He  was  decidedly  the  greatest  religious  teacher  that 
ever  lived,  and,  if  we  can  not  prove  (to  the  skeptic)  that 
He  was  absolutely  infallible,  we  can  show  that  He  was 
nearer  so  than  any  one  else  that  ever  lived  on  this  earth. 
This  gives  Him  supremacy  in  the  religious  sphere. 

*  "  North  American  Review,"  August,  1888,  p.  160. 


250  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

This  conclusion  is  not  in  the  least  shaken  by  the 
difficulties  of  Biblical  criticism.     I  dare  say  that  there 
is  not  a  single  skeptic  of  any  note— certainly  not  a 
Baur,  a  Kenan,  a  Huxley— who  will  object  to  this  con- 
clusion.    But  if  this  conclusion  is  true,  then  Jesus  of 
Nazareth— not  a  Zoroaster,  a  Confucius,  a  Buddha,  a 
Socrates,  a  Mohammed,  or  a  Paul — is  our  Master  in  re- 
ligion.    He  is  for  us  the  divinest  among  men,  and 
therefore  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  with  a  question 
we  can  never  solve.     Let  us  suppose,  for  instance,  that 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Lord's  Prayer  are  at 
least  substantially  correct— that  their  main  principles 
were  enunciated  by  our  Lord,  and  are  true— then  He 
was  certainly  so  far  infallible,  and  these  contain  the 
essentials  to  salvation  from  sin  here  and  suffering  here- 
after.    Why,  then,  trouble  ourselves  with  (for  instance) 
the  question  whether  Christ  believed  and  taught  demo- 
niacal possession  as  it  appears  in  the  Gospels  ?  *     We 
never  can  settle  this  question  beyond  doubt,  and,  since 
it  is  of  no  great  practical  importance,  we  may  either  ig- 
nore it  or  attribute  the  opinions  about  demons  to  the 
authors  of  the  Gospels.    At  any  rate,  it  should  never  be 
forgotten  that  none  of  the  books  in  the  New  Testament 
were  written  by  Jesus,  and  most  of  them  were  written 
many  years  after  his  death  by  more  or  less  credulous 
and  superstitious  disciples,  and  hence  no  one  should  dog- 
matize on  a  point  like  that  under  consideration. 

The  view  of  inspiration,  then,  which  I  would  main- 
tain is,  that  God  has  sent  men  into  the  world  at  different 
times  differently  endowed  with  religious  insight,  and 
they  have  imparted  truth  as  their  fellow-men  were  able 

*  Keim,  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,'"  iii,  p.  236  et  seq. 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION.  251 

to  receive  it.    The  Bible  "  is  a  record  of  this  progressive 
revelation  divinely  adapted  to  the  hard  heart,  the  dull 
understanding,  and  the  slow  development  of  mankind." 
I  believe  that  "  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things 
necessary  to  salvation  "  (Article  VI,  Episcopal  Prayer- 
Book),  and  I  am  glad  that  I  belong  to  a  church  which 
does  not  attempt  to  explain  how  those  great  truths  were 
communicated  "  to  the  holy  men  of  old."    Nothing  but 
failure  and  disaster  can  ever  result  from  dogmatizing'on 
such  a  subject.     Give  us  the  Scriptures  of  God  in  their 
broad  outlines — the  revelation  of  God  in  its  glorious 
unity.     "  The  last  word  of  the  sacred  Book,"  says  Dr. 
Farrar,  "was  a  word  of  infinite  significance.     It  was, 
'  Little  children,  keep  yourselves  from  idols '  (I  John, 
v,  21).     Idols  are  always  a  fatal  hindrance  to  the  attain- 
ment of  the  truth.      Sooner  or  later  they  that  make 
them  become  like  unto  them,  and  so  do  all  who  put 
their  trust  in  them.     Such  idols— ignorant,  well-mean- 
ing, credulous  suspicions  and  fond  conceits,  those  fleet- 
ing images  born  of  confusions  of  language,  false  theo- 
ries, and  perverse  demonstrations — only  vanish  when 
the  light  of  God  penetrates  into  the  deep  recesses  of 
the  shrine.      History  is  a  ray   of    that  light  of    God. 
A  great  part  of  the  Bible  is  History,  and  all  History, 
rightly  understood,  is  also  a  Bible.      Its  lessons   are 
God's  divine  methods  of  slowly  exposing  error  and  of 
guiding  into  truth.     Facts  are  God's  words,  and  to  be 
disloyal  to  God's  facts  is  to  dethrone  Him    from  the 
world."  *     Let  us  then,  go  the  Scriptures  without  any 
theory  of  inspiration,  and  study  them  in  the  light  of 
History  and  Science,  firmly  believing  that  truth  is  eter- 

*  "  History  of  Interpretation,"  preface,  p.  xii. 


252  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

nal  and  can  not  be  overthrown,  while  error  must  die 
even  though  it  be  bolstered  up  by  authority  for  years. 

Let  no  one  imagine  for  a  moment  that,  because  the 
author   has   thus   strongly  denounced   Bibliolatry   and 
unauthorized  dogma,  and  insisted  on  treating  the  Bible 
as  only  one  of  many  pieces  of  religious  literature,  he 
either  agrees  with  that  flippant  popular  skepticism  of 
our  day  that  does  little  else  than  ridicule  and  tear  to 
pieces,  or  would  underrate  that  book  of  books.     But  I 
am  thoroughly  convinced  that  "  the  supremacy  of  the 
Scriptures  is  assured  when,  and  only   when,  they  are 
seen  to  be  human  as  well  as  divine,  and  are  not  regard- 
ed as  the  sole  source  of  revelation,  but  rather  as  the  rec- 
ord of  its  progressive  development."     We  then  under- 
stand that  the  author  of  Genesis  ought  not  to  be  ex- 
pected to  anticipate  modern  science.     We  then  see  why 
Abraham  could  have  concubines  and  own  slaves ;  how 
Joshua  could  slaughter  the  Canaanites  and  think  he  was 
doing  God's  will ;  how  Deborah  could  bless  Jael  for  her 
treachery,  and  how  David  could  solemnly  invoke  God's 
wrath  against  his  enemies.      All   these  ancient   saints 
were  "  enlightened  with  only  a  very  small  portion  of 
that   Divine   Light   which  went   on   brightening  ever 
more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day  "  which  dawned  on 
the  heights  of  Bethlehem  and  Nazareth.    "  In  the  name 
of  the  Son  of  God  "—of  a  Divine  Life,  not  a  Book — 
*  is  the  secret  of  our  security,  of  our  freedom,  of  our 
strength.     If  we  build  upon  Him,  we  build  on  the  one 
foundation.      It    is    because   they   put   themselves  in 
place  of  Him,  that  hierarchies  have  fallen  into  corrup- 
tion and  ruin.     It  is  because  they   failed  to  compre- 
hend his  nature  that  philosophies  have  passed  away.     It 
is  because  they  thrust  the  dead  letter  in  the  place  of 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION  253 

his  living  Spirit,  that  religious  movements  have  ended 
in  hatred  and  obstruc  liven  ess.  It  is  because  they 
have  mistaken  the  dawn  for  a  conflagration  that  theo- 
logians have  so  often  been  the  foes  of  light.  It  is 
because  they  have  appealed  to  self-deceiving  inten- 
tions as  infallible  proofs  of  their  own  human  interpre- 
tations, that  their  cherished  conclusions  have  so  often 
been  overthrown.  But  no  church,  and  no  system,  and 
no  man  who  has  been  rooted  and  grounded  in  Him  in 
love  has  ever  failed  to  increase  with  the  increase  of 
God.  Amid  the  tyrannies  of  priestcraft,  amid  the  aber- 
rations of  theology,  amid  the  doubts  and  difficulties  of 
criticism,  the  Bible  has  continued  to  be  the  inalienable 
possession  of  the  Christian  Church.  ]No  attempt  to 
keep  the  sacred  writings  as  a  seven-sealed  book  in  the 
hands  of  the  clergy,  no  insuperable  difficulties  created 
by  dogmas  about  inspiration,  no  false  systems  of  inter- 
pretation built  upon  those  dogmas,  have  been  able  to 
snatch  the  Bible  wholly  from  the  hands  of  that  vast 
unknown  multitude  whom  God  has  known  for  his  and 
who  have  departed  from  iniquity.  To  them — the  sim- 
ple and  the  unselfish  and  the  pure  in  heart — it  has  ever 
been  as  still  it  is  a  guide  to  the  feet  and  a  lamp  to  the 
path — 'a  granary  of  wholesome  food  against  fenowed 
traditions.'  Reading  the  Scripture  not  with  eyes  of  par- 
tisanship, or  suspicion,  or  of  self-interest,  but  with  the 
eyes  of  love,  and  into  the  soul's  vernacular,  they  have 
found  it  rich  in  blessing  and  consolation.  The  secret  of 
the  Lord  has  been  with  them  that  fear  Him,  and  He  has 
shown  them  his  covenant." 

And  so  it  ever  will  be.  The  Bible  is  by  no  means 
obsolete,  a  collection  of  "old  wives'  fables."  "This 
collection  of  books,"  said   that    eminent   freethinker, 


254  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Theodore  Parker,  "  has  taken  such  a  hold  on  the  world 
as  no  other.  The  literature  of  Greece,  which  goes  up 
like  incense  from  that  land  of  temples  and  heroic  deeds, 
has  not  half  the  influence  of  this  book.  It  goes  equally 
to  the  cottage  of  the  plain  man  and  the  palace  of  the 
king.  It  is  woven  into  the  literature  of  the  scholar  and 
colors  the  talk  of  the  streets."  "  How,"  asked  Prof. 
Huxley,  "  is  the  religious  feeling,  which  is  the  essential 
basis  of  conduct,  to  be  kept  up  in  the  present  utterly 
chaotic  state  of  opinion,  without  the  use  of  the  Bible  ? 
By  the  study  of  what  other  book  could  children  be  so 
much  humanized,  and  made  to  feel  that  each  figure  in 
the  vast  historical  procession  fills,  like  themselves,  but 
a  momentary  space  in  the  interval  between  two  eternities, 
and  earns  the  blessings  or  the  curses  of  all  time  accord- 
ing to  its  efforts,  to  do  good  and  hate  evil  ? "  *  In 
another  place  he  says  :  "  Greatly  to  the  surprise  of 
many  of  my  friends,  I  have  always  advocated  the  read- 
ing of  the  Bible,  and  the  diffusion  of  the  study  of  that 
most  remarkable  collection  of  books  among  the  people. 
Its  teachings  are  so  infinitely  superior  to  those  of  the 
sects,  who  are  just  as  busy  now  as  the  Pharisees  were 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  in  smothering  them  under 
'  the  precepts  of  men ' ;  it  is  so  certain  to  my  mind  that 
the  Bible  contains  within  itself  the  refutation  of  nine 
tenths  of  the  mixture  of  sophistical  metaphysics  and  old 
world  superstition  which  has  been  piled  around  it  by 
so-called  Christians  of  later  times  ;  it  is  so  clear  that  the 
only  immediate  and  ready  antidote  to  the  poison  which 
has  been  mixed   with  Christianity,  to  the  intoxication 

*  Farrar's  "  History  of  Interpretation,"  preface,   p.  xxvii,  and 
pp.  431-433. 


EVOLUTION  AND  INSPIRATION.  255 

and  delusion  of  mankind,  lies  in  copious  draughts  from 
the  undefined  spring,  that  I  exercise  the  right  and  duty 
of  free  judgment  on  the  part  of  every  man,  mainly  for 
the  purpose  of  inducing  other  laymen  to  follow  my 
example."  * 

Since,  then,  the  Bible,  without  the  assistance  of  any 
theory  of  inspiration,  can  exercise  such  an  influence 
upon  even  the  freest  and  most  skeptical  thinkers,  since, 
taken  in  all  its  simplicity,  as  a  book  of  books,  as  a  record 
of  religious  experiences,  it  can  do  so  much  good,  can 
draw  so  many  to  the  throne  of  the  Eternal,  why  should 
we  obscure  that  simplicity  and  thwart  that  blessed  work 
by  insisting  upon  accepting  our  theories  along  with 
the  Holy  Scriptures  ?     May  God  forbid  ! 

Let  us  study  and  interpret  those  parts  of  the  Bible 
which  refer  to  natural  phenomena  by  the  light  of  mod- 
ern science,  making  all  due  allowance  for  the  times  in 
which  they  were  produced.  Let  us  study  the  historical 
portions  of  Scripture  in  connection  with  the  history  of 
those  nations  with  which  the  Israelites  came  in  contact 
— Chaldea,  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Persia,  etc. 

Let  us  study  the  Biblical  philosophy  and  religion  as 
a  part  of  universal  philosophy  and  religion.  So  shall 
we  find  our  Bible  a  lamp  unto  our  feet,  and  a  light  unto 
our  path,  as  we  journey  through  the  wilderness  of  life 
to  that  city  which  hath  foundations  whose  builder  and 
maker  is  God. 


*  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  June,  1889,  p.  167. 


CHAPTER  III. 

EVOLUTION"   AND   THE   TRINITY. 

In  the  opinion  of  many  good  and  learned  people,  all 
wisdom  and  knowledge  on  religious  subjects  was  con- 
fined to  the  first  three  or  four  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era.  During  that  time  the  New  Testament  was  origi- 
nated and  the  popular  doctrines  concerning  the  Godhead 
and  the  Person  and  Mission  of  Christ  were  promulgated  ; 
and  since  then  nothing  has  been  added  to  the  book  of 
knowledge.  These  questions  are  forever  "  closed,"  and 
hence  we  frequently  hear  an  "  orthodox  "  clergyman 
denounce  one — especially  if  he  be  a  young  man — who, 
he  says,  "  preaches  as  if  there  were  nothing  settled  in 
Christian  theology." 

Now  it  is  true  that  there  are  some  preachers  who 
discuss  the  doctrines  of  the  Godhead,  Immortality,  the 
Person  and  Mission  of  Jesus,  etc.,  as  if  these  questions 
were  not  "  closed  "  ;  but  they  do  so  because  these  are 
precisely  the  questions  which  agitate  thinking  minds 
among  all  classes.  While  the  various  sects  of  Christen- 
dom are  urging  their  "  distinctive "  claims  to  be  the 
Church,  such  persons  are  asking,  Is  Christianity  of 
divine  origin  ?  Wherein  is  it  more  divine  than  other 
religions — Buddhism,  Mohammedanism,  etc.?  While 
theologians  are  wasting  their  mental  energies  discussing 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  TRINITY.  257 

theories  of  the  Sacraments,  of  the  Atonement,  and  such 
like,  other  thinking  men  and  women  are  asking,  Is  there 
a  God?  Is  there  a  future  life?  Is  there  any  need  of 
an  Atonement  for  sin  ?  Rev.  Frederick  Robertson  says 
somewhere,  I  think  in  a  lecture  to  workingmen,  that 
while  the  clergy,  on  a  certain  occasion,  were  in  one  hall 
discussing  theories  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, the  workingmen  were  in  a  hall  hard  by  discussing  the 
question,  Is  there  a  God  ?  I  was  once  very  much  sur- 
prised by  having  the  president  of  a  Carpenters'  Union 
— a  Roman  Catholic — tell  me  that  he  had  written  a 
paper  on  "  Reason  and  Revelation,"  which  he  thought 
of  having  published,  and  it  had  taken  him  the  whole  of 
one  winter  to  prepare  this  paper.  These  are  the  subjects 
which  engage  the  attention  of  thinking  minds  even 
among  "  the  masses,"  not  the  mint  and  anise  and  cummin 
of  theology.  How  infinitely  puerile  must  most  of  the 
questions  discussed  in  the  pulpit  and  ecclesiastical  coun- 
cils appear  to  one  who  is  thinking  about  the  great  prob- 
lems of  God,  the  Soul,  and  Immortality !  Say  what 
we  will  and  do  what  we  will,  there  is  no  question  abso- 
lutely "  closed." 

Every  man  born  into  this  world,  if  he  thinks  at  all, 
must  sooner  or  later  "open"  the  questions  mentioned, 
and  this  is  my  apology  to  those  who  might  demand  an 
apology  for  "  opening  "  a  discussion  about  the  Godhead. 
I  tind  even  among  the  so-called  "  weaker  sex"  (which, 
however,  is  very  much  stronger  than  is  generally  sup- 
posed) that  it  is  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the 
Origin  and  Destiny  of  Man,  etc.,  which  claim  their  atten- 
tion, and  they  do  not  want  to  know  what  St.  Athana- 
sius  taught  or  what  any  sect  in  Christendom  teaches  on 
these  subjects ;  but  they  want  to  know  whether  the  popu- 


258  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

lar  doctrines  are  true  or  false  /  and  the  latter  alternative 
is  being  more  widely  and  rapidly  accepted  than  some 
people  imagine.  Hence  I  shall  discuss  these  doctrines  as 
if  they  were  new  problems,  save  only  that  I  shall  briefly 
trace  the  historical  development  of  such  doctrines,  and 
then  state  the  view  which  seems  to  be  gaining  ground 
and  is  destined  to  triumph. 

We  have  already  seen  that  man  was  probably  athe- 
ous  * — i.  e.,  without  any  idea  of  God — in  the  begin- 
ning ;  but  gradually  he  got,  from  the  dream  or  other- 
wise, the  idea  of  the  Soul  as  distinct  from  the  Body ; 
and  having  thus  got  the  notion  of  Power  from  his  own 
Ego  or  Self,  he  attributed  such  power  to  every  phe- 
nomenon, every  moving  thing;  and  hence  he  gradu- 
ally came  to  think  of  spirits  operating  in  all  Nature 
around  him.  Thus  arose  Ancestor-worship,  Fetichism, 
Nature-worship,  Polytheism,  and  such  like.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  my  purpose  to  trace  the  general  develop- 
ment of  ideas  respecting  the  Deity,  as  this  has  been 
most  ably  done  in  the  works  of  Mr.  Spencer  and  others, 
and  I  am  concerned  mainly  with  the  development  of 
such  ideas  in  the  Israelitish  nation.  But  this  nation 
came  out  from  another  nation,  viz.,  the  Chaldean  (Gen., 
xi,  27 ;  xii,  etc.),  and  came  in  contact  with  the  Egyptians, 
the  Babylonians,  the  Persians,  the  Greeks,  and  the 
Romans,  and  it  is  plain  that  its  entire  life  was  influ- 
enced more  or  less  by  these  nations.  Hence  it  is  neces- 
sary to  consider  such  influence  in  treating  of  Israel's 
religious  life. 

It  is  more  particularly  necessary  to  know  what  sort 

*  This  word  was  happily  coined  by  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  Eng- 
land. See  his  "  Science  and  Faith,"  p.  46.  John  Murray,  London, 
England,  1883. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  TRINITY.  259 

of  notions  of  Deity  prevailed  in  that  nation — the  Chal- 
dean— from  which  the  Israelites  sprang. 

"  The  religion  of  the  Chaldeans,'1  says  Canon  Raw- 
linson,  "from  the  very  earliest  times  to  which  the 
monuments  carry  us  back,  was,  in  its  outward  aspect,  a 
polytheism  of  a  very  elaborate  character.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  there  may  have  been  esoteric  explana- 
tions, known  to  the  priests  and  the  more  learned, 
which,  resolving  the  personages  of  the  Pantheon  into 
the  powers  of  Nature,  reconciled  the  multiplicity  of 
gods  with  monotheism,  or  even  atheism.  So  far,  how- 
ever, as  outward  appearances  were  concerned,  the  wor- 
ship was  grossly  polytheistic."  *  It  was  from  this  poly- 
theistic nation  that  Israel  sprang. 

Abraham's  father  was  an  idolater  (Josh.,  xxiv,  1-15), 
and  the  documents,  on  the  Creation,  the  Deluge,  etc. 
which  Abraham  probably  took  with  him  from  "  Ur  of 
the  Chaldees,"  and  which  now  constitute  the  first  chap- 
ters of  our  Genesis,  were,  no  doubt,  written  by  some  of 
those  "  learned  "  men  who,  Canon  Pawlinson  says,  gave 
"  esoteric  explanations  "  of  the  Chaldean  doctrines  con- 
cerning the  gods.  Perhaps  we  may  see  in  the  singular 
verb  {Bard — "  created  ")  of  Genesis,  i,  1,  which  follows 
the  plural  name  Elohim  (God),  a  trace  of  this  esoteric 
explanation.  The  Chaldean  savants  may  have  been 
attempting  to  lead  the  popular  mind  to  think  of  the 
Elohim  as  one,  and  among  these  savants  we  must  class 
Abraham.  This  Patriarch's  migration  from  Chaldea 
marks  a  stage  in  the  development  of  religion.  In 
Abraham  wTe  have  the  transition  from  Polytheism  to 

*  Rawlinson,  "  Ancient  Monarchies,"  vol.  i,  chap,  vii,  on  "  Relig- 
ion of  Chaldea." 
13 


260  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

anthropomorphic  Henotheism— that  is,  an  idealization 
and  condensation  of  many  deities  into  a  single  Deity 
with  many  human  attributes.  What  is  meant  espe- 
cially by  "  henotheism  "  is  well  expressed  in  the  follow- 
ing passage  from  Prof.  Max  Mailer's  essay  on  "  Semitic 
Monotheism  "  :  "  There  are,  in  reality "  he  says,  "  two 
kinds  of  oneness,  which,  when  we  enter  into  metaphys- 
ical discussions,  must  be  carefully  distinguished,  and 
which  for  practical  purposes  are  well  kept  separate  by 
the  definite  and  indefinite  articles.  There  is  one  kind 
of  oneness  which  does  not  exclude  the  idea  of  plurality, 
there  is  another  which  does.  When  we  say  that  Crom- 
well was  a  Protector  of  England,  we  do  not  assert  that 
he  was  the  onlij  protector.  But  if  we  say  that  he  was 
the  Protector  of  England  it  is  understood  that  he  was 
the  only  man  that  enjoyed  that  title.  If,  therefore,  an 
expression  had  been  given  to  the  primitive  intuition 
of  the  Deity,  which  is  the  mainspring  of  all  later 
religion,  it  would  have  been — <  There  is  a  God,' 
but°not  yet,  'There  is  but  One  God.'  The  latter 
form  of  faith,  the  belief  in  One  God  is  properly 
called  monotheism,  whereas  the  term  henotheism  would 
best  express  the  faith  in  a  single  god."  *  Such  was  the 
faith  of  Abraham,  but  whether  we  accept  this  view  or 
that  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  who  thinks  that  the  story 
of  Abraham's  Call  and  Covenant  with  the  Lord  (Gen. 
xii,  15)  implies  nothing  more  than  a  transaction  be- 
tween "a  terrestrial  potentate"— a  Chaldean  king  or 
ruler— and  the  Patriarch,  yet,  I  think,  we  must  admit 
that  the  story  of  Abraham's  conversation  with  the  three 


*  Max  Muller's  "  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,"  vol.  i,  pp. 
349,  350. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  TRINITY.  261 

men  in  "  the  plains  of  Mamre "  (Gen.,  xviii),  among 
other  passages  of  Scripture,  shows  clearly  that  his  idea 
of  the  Deity  was  decidedly  anthropomorphic. 

"  The  question  is  not  that  which  theologians  raise— 
"  Who  actually  were  these  three  men  ?  Was  the  chief 
of  them  Jehovah?  or  his  angel?  or  the  Son?  The 
question  is,  what  Abraham  thought,  or  is  described  as 
thinking,  by  those  who  preserved  the  tradition  ?  Either 
alternative  has  the  same  ultimate  implication."  * 

We  seem,  then,  justified  in  holding  this  view  of  the 
origin  of  notions  concerning  the  Deity  in  Israel :  First, 
man  in  general  and  the  Chaldeans  in  particular  struggled 
upward  from  a  lower  state— probably  an  atheous  condi- 
tion—through Ancestor-worship,  Nature-worship,  Fet- 
ichisrn,  etc.,  to  the  polytheistic  state.     Then,  secondly, 
the  Abrahamic  movement  occurred  which  marked  the 
transition,  in  this  nation,  from  polytheism  to  anthropo- 
morphic henotheism.     Third,  this  stage  extended,  in  all 
its  essentials,  to  the  time  of  Moses,  when  Jehovah,  the 
great  "I  Am"  (Exodus,  iii,  14),  was  set  forth  first  as  the 
national  Deity,  and  the  greatest  among  the  gods,  after- 
ward as  the  "  only  God."    "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our 
God  is  one  Lord  "  (Deut,  vi,  4,  etc.).    Of  course,  I  do  not 
mean  to  say  that  there  were  not  lower  forms  of  worship 
and  lower  notions  of  Deity  coexisting  with  these  higher 
views.     No  doubt,  as  Prof.  Fiske  says,  fetichism,  poly- 
theism, ancestor-worship,  and  Nature-worship  prevailed, 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  among  the  Israelites,  espe- 
cially among  "the  masses,"  while  the  nation  as  a  whole 
was   moving  forward  to  a  higher  plane  of   religious 
thought— i.  e.,  to  pure  monotheism— which  was  reached 


Spencer's  "Sociology,"  i,  p.  408,  etc. 


262  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

in  the  time  of  the  prophets  and  apostles.  "  In  order 
that  the  Jewish  conception  should  come  to  be  generally 
adopted,  it  was  only  necessary  that  it  should  be  freed 
from  its  limitations  of  nationality,  and  that  Jehovah 
should  be  set  forth  as  Sustainer  of  the  Universe  and 
Father  of  all  mankind.  This  was  done  by  Jesus  and 
Paul."* 

From  the  foregoing  brief  sketch  of  the  development 
of  the  idea  of  Deity  it  is  evident,  I  hope,  that  such  at- 
tempts as  that  of  Canon  Kawlinson  to  prove  "  the  early 
prevalence  of  monotheistic  beliefs"  do  not  go  to  the 
root  of  this  subject,  and  must  be  set  aside  in  the  light 
of  evolution .f 

After  the  lofty  conception  of  God  as  the  one  Su- 
preme Creator  and  Sustainer  of  the  Universe  had  been 
reached,  speculations  as  to  the  precise  nature  of  the  Deity 
came  to  the  front,  and  of  these  speculations  that  known 
as  "  Trinitarianism  "  is  the  one  which  specially  claims 
our  attention  in  this  chapter. 

"  The  dogma  of  the  Trinity,"  says  an  acute  thinker, 
"  existed  long  before  Christianity.  It  is  found  among 
the  ancient  religions  of  antiquity.  The  wise  men  of 
Egypt  fashioned  this  dogma,  as  a  symbol — an  imagina- 
tive expression — of  the  mystery  in  the  Divine  Being 
upon  which  they  came  through  all  their  studies  of  Na- 
ture. The  profound  thinkers  of  India,  musing  over 
the  same  mystery  of  the  Divine  Being,  as  it  presented 
itself  to  them,  fashioned  the  very  same  conception. 

"  A  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Trinity  in  Unity  is  the 
underlying  idea  of  the  venerable  religion  of  the  Brah- 

*  Fiske,  "  Idea  of  God,"  pp.  74-80. 
f  "  Present-Day  Tracts,"  No.  xi. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  TRINITY.  263 

mans.  Christianity,  in  fact,  probably  owes  this  doctrine 
to  the  influence  of  Egyptian  speculation,  and  possibly 
to  the  indirect  influence  of  Hindoo  speculation,  in  the 
early  church. 

"  Our  dogma  was  born  in  Alexandria  (Egypt).  It 
was  nurtured  at  the  hands  of  men  who  knew,  in  all 
probability,  of  this  thought  from  the  East ;  through 
whom  the  early  Christians  learned,  unconsciously,  the 
mystic  lore  of  India."  * 

This  notion  that  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  borrowed  from  India  is  contradicted  by  many  able 
writers.  Thus,  Dr.  Hagenbach  not  only  rejects  this 
opinion,  but  quotes  several  other  eminent  German  theo- 
logians who  do  the  same.  "  Since,  in  the  pagan  systems 
of  religion,"  says  one  of  these,  "  the  natural  is  most  inti- 
mately blended  with  the  divine,  their  triads  are  alto- 
gether different  from  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity :  in  the  former,  the  triads  only  denote  the  elements 
(moments)  of  a  developing  process,  and  are  therefore 
most  fully  found  in  those  religions  which  occupy  a  very 
low  position,  but  disappear  when  the  identification  of  the 
divine  with  the  natural  is  got  rid  of  in  the  further  de- 
velopment of  the  religious  systems."  f  But  while  it  is 
scarcely  possible  to  trace  any  historical  connection  be- 
tween the  Indian  Triad  and  the  Christian  Trinity,  yet, 
Dr.  Newton's  assertion  that  "  our  dogma  was  born  in 
Alexandria,  Egypt,"  is  quite  true,  and  it  is  this  fact 
which  should  be  carefully  considered. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Word  or  Logos  (John,  i, 
1,  et  seq.)  is  an  integral  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the 

*  Rev.  Heber  Newton,  "  Philistinism."  pp.  59,  60. 

f  Hageflbach,  "History  of  Doctrines,"  vol.  i,  pp.  113-115. 


264  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Trinity.  Now,  as  Dr.  Hagenbach  truly  observes,  "  we 
may  find  traces  of  this  doctrine  in  the  personification  of 
the  Divine  Word  and  the  Divine  Wisdom  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  especially,  however,  in  the  doctrine  of 
Philo  concerning  the  Logos,  and  in  some  other  ideas 
then  current."  In  a  note  an  eminent  German  theolo- 
gian is  quoted  as  saying,  "  Philo's  doctrine  of  the 
Logos  is  the  immediate  prelude  to  the  Christian  idea  of 
the  Logos."  The  important  question,  therefore,  is, 
Where  did  Philo  get  his  theory  of  the  Logos  ?  From 
heathen  philosophy,  for  it  was  by  a  combination  of 
Plato's  speculations  with  those  of  the  Stoics  that  Philo 
formulated  his  doctrine  of  the  Word*  This  doctrine, 
somewhat  modified  and  elevated,  passed  on  into  the 
Christian  Church,  througli  the  medium  of  the  "  Gospel 
according  to  John,"  in  which  the  term  Logos  is  applied 
to  Christ.  Various  of  the  early  Fathers  discuss  and 
advocate  the  doctrine,  while  the  "  heretics  "  oppose  it. 
Tertullian,  in  particular  (second  and  third  century), 
"strove  to  explain  the  mystery,  wrestling  hard  with 
language ;  he  employed  the  term  Son  in  reference  to 
the  personality  of  the  Logos  more  distinctly  than  had 
previously  been  done." 

Origen,  the  great  advocate  of  "universal  restora- 
tion," who  flourished  and  suffered  in  the  third  century, 
decisively  adopted  Tertullian's  terminology,  and  was 
led  to  the  idea  of  an  eternal  generation  of  the  Son. 
But  the  early  Fathers  differed  very  widely  in  their 
opinions  concerning  the  Logos,  and  it  was  not  until  the 
year  325  a.  d.,  when  the  memorable  Council  of  Nice 
was  held,  that  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Word  was 


*  « 


Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Philo." 


EVOLUTION'  AND   TEE  TRINITY.  265 

fully  developed  and  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  was 
formulated.  This  doctrine  is  forever  associated  with 
the  name  of  Athanasius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria  in  Egypt, 
who  flourished  during  the  fourth  century,  and  in  the 
Council  of  Nice  enunciated  this  dogma.*  The  Creed, 
however,  which  is  . called  after  Athanasius  was  not 
framed  by  him,  but,  as  Hagenbach  says,  "  originated  in 
the  School  of  Augustine,"  and  we  may  gladly  relieve 
this  great  theologian  of  the  heavy  burden  of  incompre- 
hensibility which  this  creed  involves.  Dr.  Hagenbach 
truly  observes,  "  By  its  repetition  of  positive  and  nega- 
tive propositions,  the  perpetual  assertion,  and  then  again 
denial  of  its  positions,  the  mystery  of  the  doctrine  is 
presented,  as  it  were,  in  hieroglyphics,  as  if  to  confound 
the  understanding."  f 

According  to  Athanasius,  there  are  three  Persons, 
viz.,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost— in  one  Godhead, 
and  these  three  are  coequal,  coetemal,  consubstantial 
(i.  e.,  of  the  same  essence).  Observe,  it  is  not  said  that 
there  are  Three  Persons  in  one  Person,  but  three  per- 
sons in  one  God — in  one  Substance.  An  illustration 
will  make  this  idea  clear.  An  English  naturalist  has 
shown  that  there  are  three  fundamental  colors  in  white 
light,  namely,  red,  yellow,  and  blue.  The  red  is  the 
heat-giving  ray,  the  yellow  is  the  light-giving  ray,  and  the 
blue  is  the  life-giving  ray ;  and  these  three  rays  unite  and 
form  white  light,  each  ray  at  the  same  time  maintaining 
its  distinctive  character  and  doing  its  particular  work.J 
Here  we  have  three  powers  uniting  in  one  substance, 

* "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"    article  "Athanasius";    Canon 
Robertson's  "  Church  History,"  vol.  i,  pp.  284-303,  etc. 
f  "  History  of  Doctrines,"  i,  p.  269. 
%  Christlieb,  "  Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief,"  p.  277. 


26G  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

and  yet  maintaining  their  individuality.  In  some  such 
manner,  it  is  urged,  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead 
are  united  in  one  substance.  We  must,  of  course,  lay 
aside  all  thought  of  a  material  or  physical  union  ;  we 
must  remember  that  it  is  a  spiritual  union — a  union  of 
thought,  feeling r,  and  will. 

But  the  Athanasian  doctrine  is  only  one  of  several  the- 
ories of  Divinity  which  have  been  held  by  pious  and  able 
theologians,  and  even  by  whole  sections  of  Christendom. 
Indeed,  it  was  a  reaction  against  a  view  which  was  once 
almost  universal  in  the  Church,  and  is  not  by  any  means 
dead  even  now — the  view,  namely,  which  was  set  forth 
by  Arius,  a  presbyter  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria, 
who  lived  contemporaneously  with  Athanasius.  He 
urged  that  "  if  the  Son  were  begotten,  the  Father  was 
anterior  to  him ;  therefore  the  Son  had  a  beginning ; 
once  he  was  not.  .  .  .  The  Word,"  he  said,  "  was 
created  by  the  Father,  at  his  own  will — before  all  time. 
He  was  the  highest  of  creatures — a  creature,  yet  not  as 
one  of  the  creatures — and  therefore  styled  only  begot- 
ten. He  was  framed  after  the  pattern  of  the  indwell- 
ing Divine  Logos,  or  Wisdom,  enlightened  by  it  and 
called  by  its  name."  *  This  was  the  doctrine  which 
raised  such  a  furor  in  the  early  Church  and  was  super- 
seded in  the  JS'icene  Council  by  the  Athanasian  doc- 
trine. It  is  still  held  in  all  essentials  by  the  Unitarians ; 
at  least  it  was  the  view  of  the  good  Dr.  Channing,  who 
is  acknowledged  by  the  Unitarians  as  one  of  their  lead- 
ing theological  authorities.! 

*  Robertson,  "  Church  History,"  i,  p.  281-289  ;  "  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica,"  article  "  Arius." 

f  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Channing,"  and  his 
"  Works." 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  TRINITY.  267 

A  third  view  of  the  Godhead  is  that  formulated 
and  advocated  by  Sabellius,  a  presbyter  of  Ptolemais, 
who  lived  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  He 
maintained  that  "  the  appellations,  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  were  only  so  many  different  manifestations 
and  names  of  one  and  the  same  Divine  Being. 

"  He  ackowledged  three  persons,  but  he  used  the 
word  in  a  sense  which  may  be  termed  merely  dramatic 
— as  meaning  characters  assumed  or  represented.  He 
illustrated  his  idea  by  comparison  with  the  three  ele- 
ments of  man — body,  soul,  and  spirit ;  and  with  the 
threefold  combination  in  the  sun,  of  shape  or  sub- 
stance, light,  and  heat."  * 

These,  then,  are  the  three  great  doctrines  of  the 
Godhead,  the  Athanasian,  the  Arian,  and  the  Sabellian, 
which  have  at  different  times  been  held  in  the  Church. 
The  Athanasian,  as  is  well  known,  is  considered  the 
"  orthodox  "  view,  and  is  the  popular  doctrine.  The 
Arian  theory,  as  already  stated,  is  held  at  least  by 
many  of  the  Unitarians ;  and  the  Sabellian  view  is  held 
by  some  profound  philosophers  of  our  day,  especially 
among  the  Naturalists. f 

Now,  my  object  in  thus  tracing,  first,  the  idea  of 
God  as  the  Supreme  Creator  and  Governor  of  the 
Universe,  and,  secondly,  the  speculations  concerning 
his  specific  nature,  to  their  historical  fountain-head,  has 


*  Hagenbach,  "  History  of  Doctrines,"  i,  p.  246  ;  Robertson, 
"Church  History,"  i,  pp.  119-122;  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica," 
article  "  Sabellius." 

t  See  Le  Conte's  "Religion  and  Science,"  pp.  196-211,  etc., 
where  the  author  expresses  and  adopts  essential  Sabellianism. 
Swedenborg  also  seems  to  have  held  the  Sabellian  doctrine—"  The 
True  Christian  Religion,"  p.  280,  et  seq. 


268  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

been  to  show  their  natural  and  human  origin.  Un- 
doubted] y,  we  may  study  the  writings  of  Philo,  Atha- 
nasius,  and  others  like  them,  with  much  profit,  but  we 
should  never  exalt  them  into  oracles,  or  accept  their 
opinions  as  absolutely  infallible.  We  should  be  at  per- 
fect liberty  to  accept  any  theory  of  the  Godhead  which 
may  commend  itself  to  our  enlightened  conscience  and 
reason,  and  reject  any  which  may  not  so  commend 
itself.  Does,  then,  the  Athanasian  dogma  seem  Script- 
ural and  rational  ?  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the 
other  two  views,  since  they  are  considered  "  heresies," 
and  so  whoever  rejects  the  Athanasian  may  accept 
either  the  Arian  or  the  Sabellian  view  with  impunity. 
What  does  Athanasianism  attempt?  It  attempts  to 
explain  the  exact  relationship  which  exists  between 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Does  the  New  Testa- 
ment do  this  ?  I  answer  unhesitatingly,  no ;  and  since 
Athanasius  attempts  to  do  that  which  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  did  not,  we  may  decline  to  accept 
him  as  authority,  unless,  indeed,  he  can  prove  himself 
superior  to  them  in  wisdom,  which  is  hardly  possible. 
But,  of  course,  it  would  be  urged  that,  "  although  the 
Athanasian  dogma  is  not  expressly  and  verbally  enun- 
ciated in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  impliedly  taught ; 
it  is  necessarily  involved  in  its  teaching."  To  which 
it  may  be  replied  :  First,  on  so  important  a  subject 
as  that  under  discussion  we  can  not  accept  alleged 
implications,  which  may  be  nothing  more  than  the 
reading  into  the  Scriptures  the  preconceived  opinions 
of  the  theologian.  Secondly,  it  is  simply  a  matter 
of  individual  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  the  Athana- 
sian theory  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  teachings  of 
the  New  Testament.     To  one  who  accepts  the  verbal 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  TRINITY.  269 

inspiration  of  all  its  books  it  may  be  possible  to 
string  together  a  few  disjointed  texts  so  as  to  make 
out  a  prima  facie  case  for  St.  Atlianasius ;  but  it  is 
not  so  easy  for  one  who  does  not  accept  verbal  inspi- 
ration to  do  this.  It  is  doubly  hard  for  him  to  do  so  if 
he  considers  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  work  of  a  Philonic 
dogmatist  rather  than  that  of  the  "  Beloved  Disciple." 
And  if  Holy  Scripture  does  not  justify  such  transcend- 
ent speculation  as  that  implied  in  the  Athanasian  doc- 
trine of  the  Godhead,  certainly  reason  does  not.  Ac- 
cording to  Atlianasius,  there  are  three  persons  in  one 
Godhead ;  but  what  constitutes  Personality  f  Self- 
conseiousness — i.  e.,  the  recognition  of  Self  as  a  think- 
ing and  willing  being.  "  Each  of  us  has  his  own  dis- 
tinct circle  of  consciousness,  and  they  do  not  and  can 
not  touch  each  other.  Hence,  we  can  not  believe  that 
a  separate  consciousness  is  the  nature  of  the  distinction 
between  the  different  modes  of  Divine  existence,  for 
this  is  inconsistent  with  unity.  And  yet  this  separate 
consciousness  is  what  we  mean  by  personality,  when 
applied  to  man."  *  In  short,  Personality,  as  we  under- 
staud  it,  consists  of  something  (viz.,  self -consciousness) 
which  can  not  be  shared  with  more  than  one  being.  If, 
therefore,  there  be  three  self-consciousnesses  or  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  there  must  be  three  Gods. 
But  perhaps  the  short  and  easy  way  of  proving,  if  not 
the  irrationality  of  the  Athanasian  doctrine,  at  least  its 
absolute  ^fp^-rationality,  is  to  refer  the  reader  to  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer's  "  First  Principles,"  and  Dean  Man- 
sel's  "  Bampton  Lectures  "  there  quoted.  Whatever 
may  be  the  defects  of  Agnosticism,  whatever  objec- 

*  Le  Conte,  "  Science  and  Religion,"  p.  200. 


270  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

tions  may  be  urged  against  the  Spencerian  exposition 
of  its  principles  in  particular  (and  let  it  be  remembered 
I  do  not  accept  Agnosticism),  yet  all,  I  think,  who  have 
studied  it  must  admit  that  it  has  demonstrated,  if  not 
the  absurdity,  at  least  the  inutility,  of  all  such  attempts 
as  that  of  St.  Athanasius  to  "  fly  up  into  secrets  of 
the  Deity  on  the  waxen  wings  of  the  human  under- 
standing." 

Why  not,  then,  content  ourselves  with  the  simple 
teachings  of  Jesus  as  laid  down  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  the  Parables,  etc.  ?  Why  not  believe  that  when 
the  Master  speaks  of.  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
He  expresses  the  different  relations  of  God  to  man — 
his  different  attitudes,  so  to  speak?  As  the  Father, 
He  created  and  sustains  us ;  as  the  Son,  He  has  revealed 
to  us  "  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life  " — the  way 
of  salvation  from  sin  and  suffering  ;  as  the  Holy  Ghost, 
He  enables  us  to  walk  in  that  Way,  to  find  that  Truth, 
to  inherit  that  Life. 

Do  you  say  this  savors  of  Sabellianism  ?  I  reply, 
Yes,  but  no  more  than  popular  Trinitarianism  savors  of 
Tritheism.  "  There  are,"  says  Frederick  Eobertson, 
"in  almost  every  congregation,  themselves  not  knowing 
it,  Trinitarians  who  are  practically  Tri-theists,  worship- 
ing three  Gods."  Nay,  I  may  add,  much  of  "  ortho- 
dox theology,"  itself,  when  sharply  analyzed,  is  Tri- 
theistic  on  this  subject,  and  wThy  ?  Why,  because  hu- 
man thought  and  human  language  can  not  conceive  and 
express  the  Infinite.  Why,  then,  attempt  it  1  Why  not 
say  to  our  fellow-men,  "  My  brothers,  use  your  God-given 
conscience  and  reason  to  the  best  of  your  ability,  and 
accept  whatever  view  of  Deity  satisfies  your  mind,  and 
leave  the  rest  in  God's  hands  "  ?    At  any  rate,  this  is 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  TRINITY.  271 

my  own  view,  and  as  a  Protestant  I  claim  the  right  of 
refusing  to  accept  any  man-made  theory  which  I  believe 
to  be  either  positively  erroneous  or  so  transcendental  that 
the  theorist  himself  does  not  know  what  he  means  by  it. 
I  for  one  am  content  to  rest  in  the  thought  that  God  is, 
without  attempting  to  define  exactly  what  He  is.  But 
lest  some  one  be  unable  to  rest  here  wTith  me,  and 
demand  that  I  say  at  least  what  truth  lay  at  the  root  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  gave  birth  to  it,  I  shall 
quote  the  following  profound  words  of  Dr.  Heber 
Newton  which  will  answer  this  question  :  "  All  Nature  " 
(he  says)  "  suggests  an  ultimate  unity.  The  spectroscope 
reveals  the  same  elements  of  matter  in  Mars  and  Jupi- 
ter as  those  out  of  wThich  our  earth  is  builded.  All 
forms  of  force  are  forever  slipping  and  sliding,  in  a  baf- 
fling way,  into  one  another,  and  light,  and  heat,  and 
electricity  prove  but  one  and  the  same  energy.  The 
stars  of  heaven  sweep  through  their  majestic  orbits, 
under  the  leash  of  the  law  which  draws  the  curve  of  the 
apple  as  it  falls  from  the  tree.  One  type  of  structure  runs 
through  all  the  varied  organisms  of  earth.  Man's  body 
is  that  of  the  dog,  set  upon  its  hind-legs  and  with  its 
fore-paws  turned  into  hands,  and  the  dog  is  a  tree  mov- 
ing about.  The  oyster  on  your  table  presents  you  with 
Nature's  rough  draft  of  the  internal  organs  which  you 
carry  within  you.  This  is  the  fascinating  mystery  of 
unity  which  all  Nature  discloses.  This  unity  is  an 
expression  of  the  Divine  Being.  God  is  one.  But  in 
this  unity  what  a  bewildering  manifoldness  ! 

"  How  infinite  the  changes  of  form  which  the  Divine 
Being  takes !  No  fixed  or  changeless  unity  is  this  of 
the  Divine  Being,  but  a  unity  which  comprehends  all 
multiplicity,  and  subsists  under  all  variety.     God  is  not 


272  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

a  unit — He  is  unity.     He  is  not  a  melody,  He  is  the 
harmony  of  all  things.  .  .  . 

"  Now,  the  number  which  first  finds  expression  for 
this  unity  in  variety  is  the  number  three.  'One'  is 
the  mere  unit.  '  Two '  represents  mere  variety  with- 
out a  bond  of  unity.  It  is  the  number  which  denotes 
the  analysis— the  severing  and  differentiating  of  primal 
unity. 

"  '  Three '  expresses  a  return  to  a  higher  unity — har- 
mony. It  makes  a  new  synthesis.  It  is  unity  in  tri- 
unity.  The  child  saw  this  of  old,  and  the  philosopher 
simply  saw  that  this  mystery  ran  through  all  Nature, 
up  into  the  mystery  of  the  human  being.  He  saw  that 
life  arranges  itself  in  triads  and  combinations  of  triads. 
He  saw  that  the  possibilities  of  space  are  exhausted  in 
a  '  here,'  '  there,'  and  '  everywhere ' ;  that  the  possibili- 
ties of  time  are  exhausted  in  a  'past,'  'present,'  and 
'  future ' ;  that  the  possibilities  of  individuality  are  ex- 
hausted in  an  <  I,'  <  thou,'  and  '  he ' ;  that  the  possibili- 
ties of  personality  are  explained  in  a  'body,'  'mind/ 
and  '  soul ' ;  and  so,  fascinated  by  this  secret  of  the 
inner  rhythm  of  Creation,  he  expressed  it  in  a  dogma 
of  the  Divine  Trinity.  He  meant  by  it  that  the  Divine 
Being  is  one  substance  in  many  persons— persona  or 
masks;  or,  as  we  should  say  now,  in  many  forms."* 

To  the  same  effect  writes  Frederick  Eobertson.  "  It 
is  the  law  of  being "  (he  says)  "  that,  in  proportion  as 
you  rise  from  lower  to  higher  life,  the  parts  are  more 
distinctly  developed,  while  yet  the  unity  becomes  more 
entire. 

"  You  find,  for  example,  in  the  lower  forms  of  ani- 

*  Dr.  Newton's  "  Philistinism,"  pp.  61-63.    Cf.  James  Freeman 
Clarke's  "  Ten  Great  Religions,"  p.  124. 


EVOLUTION  AND   TEE  TRINITY.  273 

mal  life  one  organ  performs  several  functions,  one  organ 
being  at  the  same  time  heart  and  brain  and  blood-ves- 
sels. But,  when  you  come  to  man,  you  find  all  these 
various  functions  existing  in  various  organs,  and  every 
organ  more  distinctly  developed ;  and  yet  the  unity  of 
man  is  a  higher  unity  than  that  of  a  limpet.  .  .  .  Now, 
the  Trinitarian  maintains,  against  the  Unitarian  and  the 
Sabellian,  that,  the  higher  you  ascend  in  the  scale  of  be- 
ing, the  more  distinct  are  the  consciousnesses,  and  that 
the  law  of  unity  implies  and  demands  a  manifold 
unity.  .  .  .  The  Sabellian  and  the  Unitarian  maintain 
that  the  unity  of  God  consists  simply  in  a  unity  of  per- 
sons, and  in  opposition  to  this  does  the  Trinitarian 
maintain  that  grandness,  either  in  Man  or  in  God,  must 
be  a  unity  of  manifoldness."  * 

"I  am  sure,"  says  Dr.  Phillips  Brooks,  "that  the 
divine  nature  is  three  persons,  but  one  God  ;  but  how 
much  more  than  that  I  can  not  know.  That  deep  law 
that  runs  through  all  life,  by  which  the  higher  any 
nature  is,  the  more  manifold  and  simple  at  once,  the 
more  full  of  complexity  and  unity  at  once,  it  grows,  is 
easily  accepted  as  applicable  to  the  highest  of  all  na- 
tures— God.  In  the  manifoldness  of  his  being  these 
three  personal  existences,  Creator,  Redeemer,  and  Sanc- 
tifier,  easily  make  themselves  known  to  human  life.^f 
Now  I  think  very  few  people  would  hesitate  to  accept 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  thus  stated,  for,  according 
to  these  theologians,  it  is  merely  a  symbolic  expression 
of  the  manifoldness  of  God.:f  But  when  it  is  urged  that 

*  Robertson's  sermon  on  "  The  Trinity." — "  Sermons,"  pp.  471, 472. 
f  Dr.  Brooks's  "  Sermons,"  first  series,  sermon  xiii,  p.  230. 
%  The  eminent  Unitarian,  James  Freeman  Clarke,  accepts  this 
view.    See  his  "  Ten  Great  Religions  "  p.  500. 


274  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

God's  nature  is  not  manifold,  but  only  threefold — that 
"  the  Father  is  Eternal,  the  Son  is  Eternal,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  Eternal,  and  yet  there  are  not  three  Eternals, 
but  one  Eternal ;  that  the  Father  is  Omnipotent,  the 
Son  is  Omnipotent,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  Omnipotent, 
and  yet  there  are  not  three  Omnipotents,  but  one  Om- 
nipotent ;  and  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  God,  and  yet  there  are  not  three 
Gods  but  one  God  "  (  Athanasian  Creed)  —  when  all 
this  self-contradictory  theology  is  urged  upon  us,  we 
beg  leave  to  decline  its  accejDtance,  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  "  confusion  worse  confounded  " — that  neither  the 
creed- maker  nor  the  creed-accepter,  in  this  case,  knows 
whether  his  formula  is  true  or  false.  I  have  quoted  the 
three  theologians  just  mentioned — first,  because  some 
one  may  find  relief  in  their  statements  of  the  dogma  of 
the  Trinity ;  and,  secondly,  because  it  is  interesting  to 
note  the  change  which  is  slowly  coming  over  theology. 
There  is  no  such  dogmatism  evident  in  these  writers — 
indeed,  there  is  no  such  dogmatism  visible  in  any  of  the 
leading  theologians  of  our  day — as  that  which  we  find 
in  the  older  theologies,  whether  patristic,  mediaeval,  or 
post-Reformation.  Dr.  Brooks  tells  us  :  "  It  is  not  for 
us  to  catalogue  and  inventory  Deity.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  the  description  of  what  we  know  of  God. 
We  have  no  right  to  say  that  it  is  the  description  of 
God ;  for  what  there  may  be  in  Deity  of  which  we 
have  no  knowledge,  how  can  we  tell  ?  We  are  only  sure 
that  the  divine  life  is  infinitely  greater  than  our  human- 
ity can  comprehend  ;  and  we  are  sure,  too,  that  not  even 
a  revelation  in  the  most  perfect  form,  through  the  most 
perfect  medium  conceivable,  could  make  known  to  the 
human  intelligence  anything  in  God  save  that  which 


EVOLUTION  AND   TEE  TRINITY.  275 

has  relationship  to  human  life."  *  In  another  place  he 
says,  "  He  (God)  not  merely  does  not,  he  can  not,  make 
to  us  a  revelation  of  Himself  which  shall  uncover  all 
the  secrets  of  His  life  and  leave  us  nothing  for  our  won- 
der, nothing  to  elude  or  bewilder  us."  f  Likewise,  Rob- 
ertson tells  us  that  "  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  the 
sum  of  all  that  knowledge  which  has  as  yet  been  gained 
by  man.  I  say  gained  as  yet.  For  we  presume  not  to 
maintain  that,  in  the  ages  that  are  to  come  hereafter,  our 
knowledge  shall  not  be  superseded  by  a  higher  knowl- 
edge." Any  one  familiar  with  Sir  William  Hamilton's 
"  Philosophy  of  the  Unconditioned,"  as  expounded  by 
Dean  Hansel  in  his  "  Bampton  Lectures,"  and  later  by 
Hr.  Herbert  Spencer,  in  the  second  chapter  of  his 
"  First  Principles,"  must  be  struck  with  the  essential 
sameness  of  all  these  philosophies  and  theologies.  We 
read,  are  entertained,  instructed,  and  bewildered  by 
turns,  and  we  finally  settle  back  on  the  simple  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  about  the  Universal  Father 
who  loves  and  saves  us,  and  we  allow  the  theological 
and  philosophic  gladiators  to  cut  and  slash  one  another 
to  their  hearts'  content,  smiling  all  the  while  at  such 
logomachy.  This,  then,  is  about  what  Evolution  has  to 
say  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity :  First,  it  traces  the 
general  ideas  of  Deity  to  their  fountain-head,  show- 
ing how  the  rills  of  ancestor- worship,  fetichism,  Nature- 
worship,  idol-worship,  anthropomorphism,  etc.,  finally 
converged  and  blended  into  one  stream — monotheism. 
Secondly,  it  traces  the  speculations  concerning  the  spe- 
cific nature  of  One  Supreme  God  to  their  human  ori- 

*  "  Sermons,"  ut  supra,  p.  229. 
f  "  Sermons,"  second  series,  p.  306. 


276  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

gin,  and  shows,  in  particular,  that  the  Trinitarian  theory 
originated  by  a  combination  of  heathen  philosophy  with 
Semitic  theology,  and  hence  we  are  at  liberty  to  accept 
or  reject  such  speculations  according  to  their  rationality 
or  irrationality. 

Finally,  it  reveals  a  God  who  is  immanent  in  Nature, 
whose  nature  seems  to  be  psychical  or  spiritual,  and  cer- 
tainly is  manifold ;  and  it  bids  us  accept,  if  we  choose, 
the  Trinitarian  dogma  as  merely  a  symbolic  description 
of  this  manifold  Infinite  Spirit. 


CHAPTEE  IV. 

EVOLUTION    AND   THE   DIVLNITY   OF    CHEIST. 

Thus  far  in  this  treatise  I  have  spoken  of  Jesus 
merely  as  a  man,  and  perhaps  I  would  better  explain, 
at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  why  I  have  done  this. 
I  have  done  it  simply  because  history  and  science  con- 
cern themselves  with  human  beings  and  things,  if  not 
exclusively,  at  least  primarily ;  and  so  far  I  have  been 
considering  Jesus  from  the  historical  and  scientific  point 
of  view.  No  one,  not  even  the  most  rigidly  "  ortho- 
dox "  theologian,  can  object  to  this  mode  of  treatment, 
for,  even  according  to  the  traditional  dogma  concerning 
Christ's  nature,  he  was  man  as  well  as  God,  and  the 
title  "  Son  of  Man "  was  a  favorite  name  which  our 
Lord  used  of  Himself.  Now,  the  relation  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  the  Human  Jesus,  to  the  Son  of  God,  the  Di- 
vine Christ,  is  the  subject  of  this  chapter,  and  this  is 
a  question  primarily  of  Philosophy  and  Theology,  and 
only  secondarily  of  History  and  Science.  The  latter 
must  always  consider  the -Human  rather  than  the  Di- 
vine side  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Even  in  our  theologizing  and  philosophizing  on  the 
question  of  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  the  Divine  Spirit  it 
is  best  to  begin  with  the  human  element,  for  this  is,  so 
to  speak,  more  palpable — more  indubitably  a  historical 


278  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

fact — than  the  divine  element  in  this  great  Character, 
and  from  this  basis  we  may  be  able  to  climb  to  the  pin- 
nacle of  divinity. 

The  exact  way  in  which  Science — Evolution  in  par- 
ticular— affects  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  or  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  is  not  by  denying  the  possibility  of 
such  an  event,  but  by  explaining  how  the  idea  of  divine 
incarnations  in  general  and  of  this  incarnation  in 
particular  may  have  naturally  arisen.  The  ideas  of 
supernatural  agents  are  traced  to  their  origin  in  the 
primitive  man's  notion  of  a  ghost-world,  and  from  this 
primitive  philosophy,  it  is  claimed,  sprang  all  those  no- 
tions, so  prevalent  in  ancient  times  and  among  modern 
savages,  about  spirits  possessing  men  and  producing 
various  good  and  evil  effects — insanity,  epilepsy,  etc., 
and  marvelous  feats  of  military  prowess,  legal,  philo- 
sophic, and  religious  insight.  Thus  men  learned  to 
think  of  all  great  men  as  divinely  inspired  or  god-de- 
scended. 

"  That  the  story  of  a  god-descended  person,"  says 
Mr.  Spencer,  "should  be  habitually  spoken  of  by  Chris- 
tians as  though  it  were  special  to  their  religion,  is  strange, 
considering  their  familiarity  with  stories  of  god-de- 
scended persons  among  the  Greeks — ^Esculapius,  Py- 
thagoras, Plato.  * 

"  But  it  is  not  the  Greek  religion  only  which  fur- 
nished such  parallels.  The  Assyrian  king  Nebuchad- 
nezzar asserted  that  he  had  been  god-begotten.  It  is  a 
tradition  among  the  Mongols  that  Alung  Goa,  who  her- 
self had  a  spirit  for  her  father,  bore  three  sons  by  a 

*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  articles  "  iEsculapius,"  "  Pythago- 
ras," and  "  Plato." 


EVOLUTION  AND  TEE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST.    279 

spirit.  In  ancient  Peru  if  any  of  the  virgins  of  the 
Sun  appeared  to  be  pregnant,  she  said  it  was  by  the 
Sun,  and  this  was  believed,  unless  there  was  some  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary.  And  among  the  existing  inhab- 
itants of  Mangaia  it  is  the  tradition  that  the  lovely  Ina- 
ani-vai  had  two  sons  by  the  great  god  Tangara."  * 
Strauss,  long  before  Spencer,  as  is  well  known,  urged 
this  same  idea  even  more  ably  than  the  great  Agnostic 
does.  "  No  proof,"  he  says,  "  is  wanted  to  show  that 
in  the  province  of  the  Grseco-Roman  religion  the  idea 
of  Sons  of  God  was  currently  in  vogue.  It  referred 
not  merely  to  the  demigods  of  the  mythical  period,  but 
was  also  applied  to  historical  personages  of  the  later 
times.  In  many  cases  it  may  have  been  the  vanity  of 
rulers  or  the  flattery  of  subjects ;  in  others  it  was  un- 
deniably a  real  faith  of  a  narrower  or  wider  circle,  and 
this  faith  sometimes  appears  very  early,  almost  before 
personages  so  worshiped  have  departed  this  life.  To 
say  nothing  of  Pythagoras,  whom,  at  a  later  period,  his 
enthusiastic  adherents  represented  as  a  son  of  (the  god) 
Apollo,  there  was  a  legend  current  about  Plato  in  Ath- 
ens, even  in  the  lifetime  of  his  nephew  Speusippus 
that  Apollo  had  had  intercourse  with  his  mother  Peric- 
tione.  Alexander  the  Great  may,  indeed,  have  himself 
originated  the  report  that  he  was  begotten  of  Zeus  with 
Olympias.  Livy,  also,  insinuates  that  the  elder  Scipio 
favored  the  rise  of  a  similar  legend  that  was  current 
about  him  among  the  Poman  people.  But,  however 
they  may  have  arisen,  histories  of  this  kind  were  be- 
lieved under  many  forms  at  a  time,  with  the  impulse  of 
which  toward  contact  with  the  supernatural  world  they 

*  Spencer's  "  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,"  p.  702. 


280  EVOLUTION  OB1  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

correspond,  and  thus  we  can  not  be  surprised  if  the 
Christians  sought  to  give  to  their  Messiah  a  birth  of 
equal  rank  with  these  teachers  of  philosophy  and  rulers 
of  divine  origin."  He  further  urged  that  those  pas- 
sages in  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the  Messiah  is 
called  the  Son  of  God  (Psalms,  ii,  7),  and  the  virgin- 
born  Immanuel — i.  e.,  God  with  us  (Isaiah,  vii,  14),  etc., 
formed  the  basis  of  the  legends  about  Jesus  being  the 
Son  of  God,  born  of  a  virgin.  The  early  disciples,  es- 
pecially in  Greece  and  Rome,  lived  in  an  atmosphere 
permeated  by  sucli  heathenish  ideas  as  those  just 
stated,  and  when  they  found,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
instances  (such  as  that  of  Sarah,  Abraham's  wife)  of 
God's  opening  the  barren  womb — of  virgin-birth,  of  a 
Son  of  God  and  an  Immanuel,  they  would  soon  for- 
get the  figurative  meaning  of  these  terms,  and  begin 
to  apply  them  to  the  Christ  in  the  heathen  sense  of  the 
words.* 

Dr.  Keim  takes  essentially  the  same  view.  "  The 
entrance  of  great  men  into  the  world's  history,"  he  says, 
"is  wont  to  gather  round  it  clouds  of  mystery.  As 
manifestations  of  towering  grandeur  which  mock  at  all 
endeavors  to  explain  them  by  the  cognizable  forces  and 
self-repeating  cycles  of  their  age  and  their  surround- 
ings, they  do  constitute  a  real  mystery,  which  verges  in 
its  turn  into  the  unsolved  riddle  of  universal  being  and 
growth.  But  to  the  mystery  of  the  reality  is  added  the 
mystery  of  the  imagination,"  and  so  he  thinks  that  the 
Old  Testament,  and  the  peculiar  intellectual  atmosphere 
which  surrounded  the  early  disciples,  afforded  sufficient 
materials  for  the  legend  of  the  virgin-birth  by  the  Holy 

*  Strauss,  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  vol.  ii,  English  translation,  pp.  39-46. 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST.   2S1 

Ghost.*  And  it  is  much  easier  to  sneer  at  such  notions 
than  it  is  to  refute  them.  The  "  Gospel  according  to 
John,"  in  which  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  most  clearly 
enunciated,  was  evidently  written  by  a  Philonic  phi- 
losopher, and  so  Philo's  peculiar  views  about  the  "  Lo- 
gos "  or  "  Word  "  helped  to  mold  the  dogma  of  Christ's 
divinity.  The  stories  in  "Matthew"  and  "Luke"  are 
late  productions  by  unknown  authors ;  and  when  we  re- 
flect that  the  birth  of  Jesus  was  precisely  the  fact  which 
legend  seized  upon,  and,  in  the  apocryphal  writings, 
such  as  the  "  Gospel  of  James,"  gave  us  the  most  ab- 
surdly incredible  accounts  of  this  event,  we  find  it 
rather  hard  to  draw  the  line  between  the  stories  in 
"  Luke  "  and  "  Matthew  "  and  the  confessedly  mythical 
accounts. 

Sure  I  am  that  if  we  found  such  stories  about  any 
other  person  than  our  Saviour,  we  should  not  hesitate 
to  class  them  all  in  the  category  of  legend.  But  not 
only  does  Evolution  affect  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation  by  showing  the  natural  genesis  of 
such  notions,  it  affects  it  more  seriously  and  funda- 
mentally by  setting  forth  an  idea  of  God  which  abso- 
lutely precludes  the  traditional  and  popular  view  of 
the  Incarnation,  though,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  it  does 
not  necessarily  affect  the  more  modern  and  philosophic 
view.  As  long  as  the  notion  that  God  was  a  sorfr  of 
man  prevailed,  it  was  comparatively  easy  to  think  of 
"  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  but  Evolution  holds 
that  God  is  the  Infinite  Spirit  or  Energy  that  per- 
meates and  sustains  all  things,  and  hence  the  doctrine 
that  this  Energy  should  be  gathered  up,  so  to  speak,  in 

*  Keim,  "Jesus  of  Nazara,"  ii,  pp.  38-101. 


282  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

a  Unite  being — man — seems  highly  doubtful.  We  are 
not  surprised,  therefore,  to  hear  Mr.  Spencer  say  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  involves  several  incred- 
ible propositions. 

"  One  is,"  he  says,  "  that  the  Cause  to  which  we  can 
put  no  limits  in  Space  or  Time,  and  of  which  our  en- 
tire Solar  System  is  a  relatively  infinitesimal  product, 
took  the  disguise  of  a  man  for  the  purpose  of  cove- 
nanting with  a  shepherd-chief  in  Syria.  Another  is 
that  this  Energy,  unceasingly  manifested  everywhere, 
throughout  past,  present,  and  future,  ascribed  to  him- 
self under  this  human  form,  not  only  the  limited 
knowledge  and  limited  powers  which  various  passages 
show  Jahveh  (Jehovah)  to  have  had,  but  also  moral 
attributes  which  we  should  now  think  discreditable  to  a 
human  being."  * 

This  passage  carries  us  to  the  root  of  our  subject. 
But  is  the  idea  of  the  Incarnation  here  set  forth  the  true 
philosophic  doctrine  as  held  by  the  best  theologians? 
I  think  not.  It  undoubtedly  expresses  the  popular  no- 
tion of  the  Incarnation ;  it  is  the  idea  which  crude 
minds  generally  set  forth  from  the  pulpit ;  it  even  re- 
ceives some  countenance  from  otherwise  philosophic 
theology,  which  too  frequently  dwells  too  exclusively 
and  emphatically  on  the  divine  element  in  Christ's 
character.  But,  as  stated  at  the  beginning  of  this 
chapter,  Jesus,  according  to  orthodox  theology,  was  a 
Man — was  human  and  divine — human  on  the  one  side, 
and  divine  on  the  other.  Hence  the  question  is  not 
that  raised  by  Mr.  Spencer,  viz.,  Did  the  Cause  to 
which  we  can  put  no  limits  in  Space  or  Time,  and  of 

*  Spencer,  "  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,"  p.  704. 


EVOLUTION'  AND  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST.   283 

which  our  entire  Solar  System  is  a  relatively  infinitesi- 
mal product,  take  the  disguise  of  man  ?  but  it  is  rather, 
What  is  the  relation  of  the  Man  Jesus  to  the  Divine 
Spirit  ? 

JS"ow,  philosophic  theology  claims  that  the  union  of 
the  human  spirit  of  Jesus  with  the  Divine  is  essentially 
perfect — i.  e.,  it  is  a  complete  union  of  thought,  feeling, 
and  will :  we  have  in  this  case,  in  the  most  profound 
sense,  "  two  souls  with  but  a  single  thought  —  two 
hearts  that  beat  as  one."  And  this  perfect  union  in 
thought,  feeling,  and  will  of  the  human  Jesus  with  the 
Divine  Spirit  constitutes  him  the  Only  Begotten  Son 
of  God — the  God-Man.  And  I  believe  with  another, 
that  this  doctrine  is  not  only  "  consistent  with  the  doc- 
trine of  evolution,"  but,  "  without  such  a  conception  as 
that  of  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  the  real  grandeur 
and  vastness  of  the  process  of  evolution  is  not  recog- 
nized." *  According  to  Evolution  the  universe,  espe- 
cially our  earth,  in  the  beginning  of  its  development,  was 
"  without  form  and  void,"  was  simply  a  cloud  of  atoms, 
and  the  form  of  force  then  operating  was  what  we  call 
''gravity" — i.  e.,  the  force  which  moves  a  stone  and 
holds  the  stars  in  their  courses.  Soon,  however,  a 
higher  form  of  force  manifested  itself,  namely,  that 
which  we  call  "  chemical  affinity  " — i.  e.,  the  force  by 
which  gases  are  compounded  to  produce,  for  instance, 
water.  Later  on  a  still  higher  form  of  force  appeared, 
viz.,  life,  first  in  plants,  and  next  in  animals.  Then 
came  mind  in  a  very  low  form  which  gradually  and 
slowly  developed   into   the  mind   of    man,  and  Prof. 


*  Symposium  on  "  Christianity  and  Evolution,"  by  Dr.  Mathe- 
son,  etc.,  p.  75.    ( Whittaker.) 
14 


28i  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Fiske  has  explaiDed  to  us,  in  a  most  striking  manner, 
how,  when  physical  evolution  had  completed  its  course, 
mental  evolution  took  up  the  work  and  carried  it  for- 
ward to  its  present  high  level,  which  is  by  no  means  its 
ultimate  goal.  "  In  its  rude  beginnings,"  he  says,  "  the 
psychical  life  was  but  an  appendage  to  the  body ;  in 
fully  developed  humanity  the  body  is  the  vehicle  for 
the  soul."  *  Very  well :  if  the  whole  physical  and 
spiritual  creation  has  been  moving  forward  and  upward 
from  lower  planes  ;  if  the  immaterial  part  in  particular 
has  developed  as  just  stated,  why  is  it  not  probable,  nay, 
almost  necessary,  that  it  should  reach  perfection  f 

Such  a  thing  is  quite  probable  and  thoroughly  ra- 
tional and  credible  from  the  evolutionist's  standpoint. 

The  general  law  of  evolution,  then,  suggests  such  a 
manifestation  of  the  Divine  in  human  form— such  an 
Incarnation  as  that  claimed  above.  Taking  our  stand 
on  this  basis,  let  us  glance  over  the  history  of  the  world 
and  ask,  Is  there  a  man,  and,  if  so,  who  is  he,  that 
seems  to  be  such  an  embodiment  of  the  Divine  Spirit  % 
Is  it  an  Abraham,  a  Moses,  an  Isaiah,  a  Paul,  a  Buddha, 
a  Confucius,  a  Zoroaster,  a  Socrates  %  Surely  not !  We 
gladly  acknowledge  the  merits  of  these  noble  men  of 
Q-od — we  believe  them  to  have  been  the  prophets  of 
the  living  and  true  God — but  will  any  one,  be  he  the 
freest  of  the  freethinkers  and  skeptics,  say  that  any  one 
of  these  good  men  equals  Jesus  of  Nazareth  in  godli- 
ness of  character  and  divineness  of  teaching  ? 

Were  they  not  mere  preludes  to  the  angel  song  which 
burst  on  the  heights  of  Bethlehem  ? — the  first  streaks 
of  the  rise  of  that  Sun  of  Eighteousness  whose  beams 

*  Fiske,  "  Destiny  of  Man,"  p.  65. 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST.   285 

have  illumined  the  Western  world  —  the  most  highly 
civilized  portion  of  the  globe?  Perhaps  some  hyper- 
skeptic  would  urge  just  here  that  "  we  don't  know  what 
Jesus  was  and  what  he  taught,  his  life  and  teachings 
have  been  so  obscured  by  legend."  To  which  I  reply, 
Notwithstanding  all  legendary  accretions,  we  can  clear- 
ly make  out  the  essential  features  of  Christ's  character 
and  teaching. 

That  he  was  a  wonderful  Character  is  clearly  proved 
by  the  marvelous  stories  about  him  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  for,  even  if  these  be  pure  myths,  yet  myths 
do  not  grow  up  around  an  ordinary  life.  But  eliminat- 
ing all  these  legendary  (i.  e.,  the  miraculous)  features 
from  the  narratives  of  Christ's  life,  we  certainly  have 
left  enough  reliable  evidence  to  prove  that  the  moral 
character  of  Jesus  was,  if  not  absolutely  perfect,  at  least 
transcendently  unique.  The  man  who  could  deliver  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matthew,  v-vii),  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  and  the  various  Parables  in  the  Gospels — the 
man  who  could  inspire  even  a  Saul  of  Tarsus  with 
veneration,  and  could  exert  the  wonderful  influence  in 
the  moral  and  religious  spheres,  among  the  most  en- 
lightened people  on  earth,  which  Jesus  has  done,  is  cer- 
tainly a  peer  in  the  spiritual  realm.  Of  course,  I  know 
that  there  are  some  skeptics  radical  enough  to-  deny  that 
the  wonderful  teaching  ascribed  to  Jesus  is  his ;  but  I 
pass  by  such  irrational  skepticism  as  unworthy  of  seri- 
ous attention,  for,  if  Jesus  were  not  the  author  of  such 
teaching,  then  the  wnknovm  authors  of  our  Gospels 
were,  and  so  we  are  forced  to  believe  the  utterly  ab- 
surd proposition  that  obscure  Jewish  or  Gentile  peas- 
ants originated  the  most  wonderful  system  of  moral  and 
spiritual  truth  ever  originated  and  ascribed  it  to  the 


286  EVOLUTION    OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Nazarene  Peasant,  who  knew  nothing  about  it.  Truly 
such  a  notion  refutes  itself. 

That  the  foregoing  view  is  rational  and  credible 
even  so  radical  a  skeptic  as  M.  Renan  admits.  "  Jesus," 
he  says,  "  is  that  individual  who  has  caused  his  species 
to  make  the  greatest  advance  toward  the  divine.  Hu- 
manity, as  a  whole,  presents  an  assemblage  of  beings, 
low,  selfish,  superior  to  the  animal  only  in  this,  that 
their  selfishness  is  more  premeditated.  But,  in  the 
midst  of  this  uniform  vulgarity,  pillars  rise  toward 
heaven  and  attest  a  noble  destiny.  Jesus  is  the  highest 
of  these  pillars  which  show  to  man  whence  he  came 
and  whither  he  should  tend.  In  him  is  condensed  all 
that  was  good  and  lofty  in  our  nature."  *  This  is  suffi- 
cient for  my  purpose,  for,  although  Renan  adds  that 
"  Jesus  was  not  sinless,"  yet  in  the  words  quoted  he  ad- 
mits enough  to  prove  that  Jesus,  if  any  one,  was  the 
man  in  whom  the  process  of  spiritual  evolution  reached 
perfection. 

Defining,  then,  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  to  con- 
sist in  a  perfect  union  of  his  human  spirit  with  the  Di- 
vine, we  undertake  to  prove  that  this  union  existed 
from  these  three  great  facts,  viz. :  First.  The  spirit  of 
every  man  is  ultimately  derived  from  God— is  an  efflu- 
ence from  the  Father  of  Spirits— and  so  the  spirit  of 
Jesus,  of  course,  came  from  God,  and  differs  from  the 
ordinary  human  spirit  only  in  the  degree  of  perfection. 
Secondly.  The  doctrine  of  evolution  would  lead  us  to 
believe  that  the  process  of  spiritual  development,  which 
began  many  ages  ago,  would  culminate,  first,  in  some 
individual,  and  then  in  all  other  individuals.     Third. 


*  Kenan's  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  p.  375. 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST.   2S7 

We  find  ample  reliable  evidence  to  prove  that,  in  Jesus 
this  goal  of  the  evolutionary  movement  was  realized, 
and  therefore  we  conclude  that  he  was  the  "  Son  of 
God"  in  a  special  sense — the  Divine  Man— who  came 
to  lead  his  fellow-men  to  that  high  state  of  spiritual 
perfection  to  which  he  has  attained.  Of  course,  this 
is  the  barest  skeleton  of  the  view  of  the  Incarnation 
which  we  (evolutionists)  hold,  and  it  is  earnestly  hoped 
that  the  reader  will  accept  it  as  such  and  try  to  clothe 
it  with  flesh  and  blood.  To  this  end  he  should,  first 
of  all,  master  the  theory  of  evolution  as  advocated 
by  such  philosophers  as  Profs.  Fiske  and  Le  Conte.* 
I  have  aimed  to  give  their  central  idea  only,  and  so 
a  perusal  of  their  works  is  necessary  to  a  full  real- 
ization of  the  force  of  this  argument  for  Christ's  spir- 
itual perfection.  After  having  mastered  the  evolu- 
tionary argument,  the  student  should  then  read  such 
books  as  Dr.  Ullmann's  "  Sinlessness  of  Jesus,"  Dr. 
Young's  "  Christ  of  History,"  Canon  Kow's  lecture  on 
"  The  Superhuman  Action  of  Jesus  Christ  in  History  " 
("Bampton  Lectures."  ]So.  II),  and  he  will  need  no 
further  proof  of  the  view  of  the  Incarnation  just  enun- 
ciated. 

Even  a  historian  so  unbiased  as  Mr.  Lecky  says : 
"It  was  reserved  for  Christianity  to  present  to  the 
world  an  ideal  character  which  through  all  the  changes 
of  eighteen  centuries  has  filled  the  hearts  of  men  with 
an  impassioned  love,  and  has  shown  itself  capable  of  act- 
ing on  all  ages,  nations,  temperaments,  and  conditions ; 

*  Fiske,  "  Destiny  of  Man  "  ;  Le  Conte,  "  Evolution  and  Relig- 
ious Thought,"  Part  111,  chap,  iv  ;  "  Religion  and  Science," 
chap,  xvi ;  "  Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  "  Princeton  Review,"  Novem- 
ber, 1878. 


288  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

has  not  only  been  the  highest  pattern  of  virtue,  but  the 
highest  incentive  to  its  practice  ;  and  has  exerted  so 
deep  an  influence  that  it  may  be  truly  said  that  the  sim- 
ple record  of  three  short  years  of  active  life  has  done 
more  to  regenerate  and  soften  mankind  than  all  the  dis- 
quisitions of  philosophers  and  than  all  the  exhortations  of 
moralists.  This  has  indeed  been  the  well-spring  of 
whatever  has  been  best  and  jyurest  in  the  Christian  life. 
Amid  all  the  sins  and  failings,  amid  all  the  priestcraft, 
the  persecution,  and  fanaticism  which  have  defaced  the 
Church,  it  has  preserved  in  the  character  and  example 
of  its  Founder  an  enduring  principle  of  regeneration." 
u  This  passage,"  as  Canon  Row  truly  observes,  "  will  be 
admitted  even  by  unbelievers  to  be  a  correct  statement 
of  the  facts  as  they  are  presented  to  us  by  history,"  and 
he  then  proceeds  to  draw  out  and  emphasize  the  full 
meaning  of  Lecky's  weighty  words,  which  can  not  be 
too  profoundly  pondered  by  all.* 

Said  the  acute  skeptic,  W.  R.  Greg,  in  his  powerful 
little  book,  "  The  Creed  of  Christendom "  (pages  306, 
307): 

"  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  most  exalted  religious 
genius  whom  God  ever  sent  upon  the  earth  ;  in  himself 
an  embodied  revelation ;  humanity  in  its  divinest  phase, 
'  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,'  according  to  Eastern  hy- 
perbole ;  an  examplar  vouchsafed,  in  an  early  age  of  the 
world,  of  what  man  may  and  should  become,  in  the 
course  of  ages,  in  his  progress  toward  the  realization 
of  his  destiny  ;  an  individual  gifted  with  a  grand,  clear 
intellect,  a  noble  soul,  a  fine  organization,  marvelous 
moral  intuitions,   and  a  perfectly  balanced  moral   be- 

*  Row's  "  Bampton  Lectures  "  (1877),  p.  96. 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST   289 

ins; ;    and  who,  by  virtue  of  these  endowments,  saw 
further  than  all  other  men — 

'  Beyond  the  verge  of  that  blue  sky 
Where  God's  sublimest  secrets  he.' " 

"Call  him  (Jesus)  what  you  please,"  says  another 
freethinker,  "  he  was  an  avatar  (i.  e.,  an  incarnation)  of  the 
God  of  justice,  love,  and  order ;  and  as  such  I  worship 
him.  I  look  in  vain  to  Benares,  to  Pekin,  to  Mecca, 
to  Athens,  or  to  any  other  nucleus  of  mental  or  moral 
activity,  iu  past  or  present  times,  for  such  an  original 
and  complete  guide,  through  the  labyrinth  of  practice 
and  opinion."  * 

And  so  I  might  quote  skeptic  after  skeptic,  who  vie 
with  one  another  in  eulogizing  the  wonderful  moral 
and  religious  character  of  Jesus ;  but  these  quotations 
are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  most  unbiased  minds  agree 
with  the  author  in  placing  Jesus  at  the  head  of  the 
human  race,  and  especially  at  the  head  of  religious 
teachers.  True,  these  authors  do  not  think  that  the 
moral  and  spiritual  transcendency  of  Jesus  proves  his 
divinity,  and  it  does  not  prove  such  a  doctrine  as  that 
set  forth  in  crude  popular  theology  and  embodied  in 
Mr.  Spencer's  "  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,"  but  it  does 
prove  that  the  process  of  spiritual  evolution,  which 
from  general  considerations  we  believe  must  reach  per- 
fection, has,  in  this  case,  been  perfectly  realized,  and 
we  claim  that  this  implies  the  closest  and  most  vital 
union  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus  with  the  Divine  Spirit  from 
whom  it  sprang,  which  union  constitutes  what  I  at  least 
understand  by  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.     The  per- 


*  Prof.  J.  P.  Leslie,  "The  Forum,"  January,  1888,  p.  495,  etc. 


290  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

feet  Jesus  was  the  human  side  of  the  Divine  Christ — 
the  "  second  person  of  the  Trinity."  He  was  "  the 
Divine  under  the  limitations  of  humanity"  We,  then, 
freely  grant  that  the  popular  doctrine  of  the  incarnation 
which  teaches,  in  the  first  place,  that  God  is  a  sort  of 
man,  and,  in  the  second  place,  that  this  Man-God  was 
manifested  bodily  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  has  been  ex- 
ploded by  evolution,  which  shows  us  the  natural  gene- 
sis of  such  ideas  of  God  and  His  manifestations  to  man, 
and  also  exalts  our  notion  of  the  Deity  so  as  to  preclude 
His  focalization,  so  to  speak,  in  a  finite  being,  like 
man.  We  further  grant  that  miracles  can  not  prove 
the  divinity  of  our  Master,  first,  because  the  occurrence 
of  few,  if  any,  miracles  can  be  demonstrated ;  and,  sec- 
ondly, even  if  this  could  be  done,  it  would  merely  prove 
that  Jesus  was  an  extraordinarily  endowed  man,  like 
the  Prophets  and  Apostles.  More  particularly,  we  grant 
that  the  stories  of  the  virgin-birth  of  Jesus  and  his  gen- 
eration by  the  Holy  Ghost  may  be  poetical,  hyperbolical 
representations  of  a  great  fact ;  but  we  urge  that  there 
was  a  great  fact  back  of  these  legends,  for  "  the  absurd- 
est  report,"  you  remember  Mr.  Spencer  says,  "  may  in 
nearly  every  instance  be  traced  to  an  actual  occurrence." 
The  "  actual  occurrence,"  in  this  case,  was  the  birth  of 
a  Being  who  was  the  Ideal  of  Humanity,  and  who,  as 
such,  sustained  the  most  perfect  relation  to  the  Divine 
Spirit  which  it  is  possible  for  a  finite  spirit  to  have 
with  the  Infinite,  and  hence  He  deserves  to  be  called 
the  "  Only  Begotten  of  the  Father." 

I  would  therefore  ask,  on  the  one  hand,  serious 
skeptics,  and,  on  the  other,  independent  theologians  of 
all  schools,  to  consider  the  definition  of  the  Incarnation 
given  above,  and  to  say  whether  it  is  not  rational  and 


EVOLUTION-  AND  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST.   291 

credible  in  the  light  of  the  facts  of  science  and  history, 
and  whether  it  does  not  remove  most  if  not  all  of  the 
difficulties  attaching  to  the  old  dogma,  while  at  the  same 
time  it  maintains  the  kernel  of  this  the  fundamental 
article  of  our  faith  ? 

It  is  evident  to  almost  all  scientific  minds  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  must  be,  if  not  reconstructed, 
at  least  purged  of  the  un philosophical  and  even  heathen- 
ish elements  it  contains.  The  low  anthropomorphism 
of  the  popular  dogma  is  unworthy  of  the  theology  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  and  so  it  is  earnestly  hoped  that 
the  foregoing  suggestions  may  stir  up  discussion  of  this 
subject  from  the  evolution  point  of  view.  Whether 
evolution  be  true  or  false,  many  eminent  and  learned 
men  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  they  are  unable  to  recon- 
cile their  science  with  the  theology  they  have  been 
taught.  These  men  are  by  no  means  hostile  to  religion. 
They  feel  the  need  of  religion.  They  would  gladly  be 
reckoned  among  the  followers  of  Jesus ;  but,  as  the  late 
Dr.  Carpenter— one  of  the  profoundest  thinkers  and 
most  reverential  writers  of  our  century — says,  "  There 
is  so  much  in  what  claims  to  be  the  '  orthodox '  sys- 
tems of  Theology  that  runs  counter  to  the  strongest 
and  best  instincts  of  Humanity,  that  those  who  have 
been  led  by  scientific  study  to  build  up  their  fabric 
of  thought  on  the  basis  of  their  own  Intellectual 
and  Moral  Intuitions,  find  it  impossible  to  fit  into 
this  a  set  of  doctrines  which  are  altogether  conformable 
to  it." 

Surely  the  Church  owes  something  to  such  men. 
Surely  she  ought,  as  Dr.  Carpenter  further  insists,  "  to 
admit  into  Christian  communion  every  one  who  desires 
to  be  accounted  a  disciple  of  Christ,  and  humbly  en- 


292  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

deavors  to  follow  in  the  steps  of  his  Divine  Master."  * 
But  so  long  as  Theology  opposes  Science  as  it  has  done 
during  the  last  half -century,  and  offers  these  men  the 
time-worn  scholasticism — the  haven  of  intellectual  stag- 
nation— as  the  place  of  spiritual  rest,  so  long  will  the 
great  mass  of  them  avoid  it  altogether,  and  unless  they 
can  find  anchorage  elsewhere,  will  drift  away  into  either 
vague  -wttbelief  or  absolute  ^belief.  The  author 
humbly  hopes  that  this  book,  and  this  chapter  in  partic- 
ular, may  help  these  troubled  minds  to  find  such  spirit- 
ual anchorage  as  they  desire. 

Of  course,  I  do  not  expect  to  affect  the  confirmed 
skeptic  or  the  omniscient  Traditionalist,  for  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  Divine  Power  and  Wisdom  itself  can 
overcome  prejudice ;  but  there  are  many  that  are  not 
so  rooted  and  grounded  in  the  dogmas  of  disbelief  or 
of  theology  as  to  be  absolutely  unimpressible  by  argu- 
ments on  "the  other  side."  There  are  many  who  can 
look  at  a  question  from  more  than  one  point  of  view, 
and  who,  while  they  may  not  accept  their  opponent's 
view,  may  yet  admit  that  it  is  at  least  tenable,  and  so 
may  give  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  agreeing 
to  disagree  on  the  point  at  issue.  To  such  the  above 
suggestions  may  appeal  with  some  force.  As  for  the 
confirmed  disbeliever,  he  can  not  be  converted  to  faith 
in  the  Divine  Master  until  he  is  made,  by  some  means 
or  other,  to  feel  the  need  of  a  spiritual  guide — until 
Divine  aspirations  are  stirred  within  him.  It  is  one  of 
Frederick  Robertson's  finest  thoughts  that  i:  only  to 
him  in  whom  infinite  aspirations  stir  can  an  Infinite 

*  Carpenter's  "  Mental  Physiology,"  pp.  698-708  ;  read  the  whole 
of  this  instructive  passage. 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST   293 

One  be  proved."  And  so  we  must  be  made  to  realize 
the  awful  mystery  of  Life  and  Death;  we  must  be 
made  to  confess  that  we  are 

"  Infants  crying  in  the  night, 
Infants  crying  for  the  light, 
And  with  no  language  but  a  cry." 

We  must  begin  to  long  for  Eternal  Goodness;  for 
Godlike  Character ;  and  thenr  and  not  till  then,  will 
we  try  in  earnest  to  discover  such  character,  and  so 
trying  we  shall  finally  conclude  that  the  ISTazarene 
Peasant  was  such  a  one ;  "  an  avatar  of  the  God  of 
justice,  love,  and  order,"  and  we  shall  worship  Him. 
On  any  hypothesis,  indeed,  even  on  the  supposition 
that  Jesus  was  only  an  extraordinary  man  not  related 
in  a  specially  unique  manner  to  the  Father  of  Spirits, 
we  should  be  safe  in  worshiping  His  spirit.  "  The 
whole  life  of  a  man  of  science,"  says  Prof.  Leslie,  in 
the  article  quoted,  u  disciplines  him  into  a  positive  and 
habitual  worship  of  genius  ;  makes  him  an  enthusiastic 
admirer  and  imitator  of  the  spirit  of  every  master  in 
science.  Why  not  in  morals  ?  Why  not  far  more,  infi- 
nitely more,  in  morals  ?  As  the  conduct  of  life  is  every 
way  grander  than  any  scientific  work  can  possibly  be, 
so  the  Sun  of  Kighteousness  must  outshine  the  lesser 
luminaries  of  physical  knowledge. 

"  Therefore  I  recognize  no  inconsistency  when  Kep- 
lers  and  Newtons,  a  Linngeus,  a  Davy,  a  Joseph  Henry, 
or  a  Cuvier  worship  Jesus  of  Nazareth ;  or  when  a 
Washington  or  a  Lincoln  confesses  to  the  self-molding 
of  his  whole  life  on  the  well-known,  perfectly  compre- 
hensible and  comprehended  Christian  model."  True, 
this  is  hero-worship,  but  Carlyle's  remark  that  "  all  re- 


294:  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

ligion  hitherto  known  "  rests  on  hero-worship  deserves 
earnest  consideration.  "  Hero-worship,"  he  adds,  more 
plainly,  "  heart-felt,  prostrate  admiration,  submission, 
burning,  boundless,  for  a  noble,  Godlike  form  of  man 
— is  not  that  the  germ  of  Christianity  itself  ? 

"The  greatest  of  all  heroes  is  One — whom  we  do  not 
name  here  !  Let  sacred  silence  meditate  that  sacred 
matter ;  you  will  find  it  the  ultimate  perfection  of  a 
principle  extant  throughout  maris  whole  history  on 
earth"  *  If  we  remember,  then,  that  the  spirit  of  Jesus, 
in  its  essence,  must  have  been  divine ;  must  have  been  an 
effluence  from  God ;  we  are  perfectly  safe  in  worship- 
ing it:  we  are  doubly  safe  if  we  believe,  as  above, 
that  this  divine  effluence  is  most  intimately  united  with 
its  Eternal  source.  "  It  is  then  "  (to  quote  Leslie  again) 
"  with  a  sense  of  buoyant  exultation  that  I  say  I  wor- 
ship Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  Ideal  Man  and  King  of 
men  ;  the  man  of  all  ages  and  races ;  the  image  of  the 
realized  perfection  in  human  being,  the  risen  Sun  of 
Righteousness ;  the  Son  of  God — meaning  by  God  all 
that  is  best,  and  by  Son  the  best  personified  in  man. 
Nor  is  the  word  '  worship '  a  whit  too  strong."  f 

*  Carlyle's  "  Heroes  and  Hero-Worship,"  Lecture  I. 
f  See  p.  403. 


CHAPTER  V. 

EVOLUTION  AND   THE  ATONEMENT. 

The  popular  notion  of  religion  is  that  it  is  a  pro- 
found and  incomprehensible  mystery,  which  only  a  blind 
faith  or  credulity  can  accept,  and  this  idea  is  sanctioned 
and  strengthened  in  various  ways  by  the  clergy,  who, 
many  of  them,  are  always  asserting  and  emphasizing  the 
mysterious  character  of  this  or  that  article  of  faith. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  a  mystery,  say  they, 
the  Fall  of  Man  is  a  mystery,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement  is  a  mystery,  the  future  life,  and,  in  short, 
all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  Creed,  are  incomprehen- 
sible mysteries  which  we  must  believe  but  can  not  prove 
— or,  at  least,  the  only  proof  we  can  give  of  the  truth  of 
these  mysteries  is  (in  Butler-fashion)  to  cite  analogous 
mysteries  in  physical  Nature. 

Now,  I  verily  believe  that  this  sort  of  preaching  is 
largely  responsible  for  the  spread  and  popularity  of 
Agnosticism ;  for  what  is  more  natural  and  rational, 
supposing  these  views  to  be  true,  than  to  conclude  that 
we  can  know  nothing  about  God  and  Nature,  the  origin 
of  Sin,  the  work  of  Christ,  etc.  ?  Let  us,  then,  reject 
this  silly  and  dangerous  notion  that  our  religion  consists 
of  a  blind  belief  in  inexplicable  and  incredible  myster- 
ies.    Undoubtedly  there  are  mysteries  in  Nature.    Man 


296  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

himself  is  the  greatest  mystery  of  all,  while  we  need  no 
Herbert  Spencer  to  assure  us  that  the  finite  can  not 
comprehend  the  Infinite.  The  fall  of  a  stone,  the  for- 
mation of  a  dew-drop,  the  growth  of  a  plant,  the  in- 
stinct of  animals,  are  all  mysteries  ;  but  to  these  natural 
mysteries  are  added  artificial,  man-made  mysteries,  or 
rather  intellectual  puzzles  which  can  not  be  too  quickly 
or  too  strongly  rejected.  Undoubtedly  it  is  a  mystery, 
even  on  the  evolutionary  theory,  that  man  should 

"  see  the  right  and  approve  it  too, 
Abhor  the  wrong  and  yet  the  wrong  pursue." 

But  to  this  natural  mystery  is  added  the  artificial 
mystery  of  Adam's  fall  from  a  state  of  perfect  inno- 
cence. Our  theological  puzzle-makers  are  not  content 
with  the  mysterious  fact  of  sin,  but  they  must  conjure 
up  a  being  who  is  perfect  in  every  part  and  faculty  of 
soul  and  body,  who  is  a  little  god,  and  place  him  in  a 
beautiful  paradise  where  all  his  surroundings  are  equal- 
ly as  perfect  as  himself,  save  only  one  tree ;  and,  fur- 
ther, they  must  put  him  on  the  most  intimate  terms  of 
communion  with  the  Deity ;  and  yet  this  perfect  being, 
in  a  perfect  environment,  with  all  his  inclinations  toward 
the  good  and  away  from  the  evil,  deliberately  chooses 
the  latter,  and  is  thereby  totally  depraved  in  every  part 
and  faculty  of  soul  and  body.  We  reject  such  a  notion 
as  not  only  absurd  and  incredible,  but  as  a  needless  stum- 
bling-block to  faith. 

Again  :  Our  theological  riddle-makers  are  not  con- 
tent with  the  awful  fact  of  pain  and  suffering  in  the 
world,  but  they  must  add  to  this  mystery  the  more  hor- 
rible dogma  that  a  good  God  can  only  be  "  satisfied  "  by 
the  suffering  of  His  innocent  Son.     Away  with  such 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  ATONEMENT.         297 

diabolical  ideas !  If  we  can  not  explain  the  facts  of 
which  these  expressions  are  caricatures ;  if  we  can  not 
tell  why  men  prefer  to  sin  rather  than  to  do  the  right, 
or  why  pam  and  suffering  exist,  yet  we  can  explain 
the  origin  of  the  dogmas  of  Adam's  Fall  and  Christ's 
Atonement :  we  can  show  that  the  popular  notions  on 
these  subjects  are  relics  of  barbarism.  As  might  have 
been  expected,  there  are  all  sorts  of  theories  of  Christ's 
Atonement  for  sin,  but  the  traditional  and  popular  the- 
ory is  very  well  expressed  by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  The 
various  modifications  of  the  doctrine  he  formulates  are 
confined  principally  to  certain  "  schools  "  of  theological 
thought  which  have  comparatively  little  effect  upon 
the  great,  mass  of  men.  The  hair-splitting  distinctions 
which  professional  theologians  draw  are  too  subtle  ever 
to  affect  the  popular  mind,  and  hence  we  must  simply 
aim  to  get  at  the  kernel  which  all  accept,  and  pass  over 
their  modifications  of  the  husk,  for,  after  all,  these  mod- 
ifications of  the  Calvinistic  views  scarcely  affect  any- 
thing more  than  the  husk  of  this  dogma. 

"  The  word  Atonement,"  says  Dr.  Hodge,  "  is  often 
used,  especially  in  this  country,  to  designate  the  priest- 
ly work  of  Christ."  But  he  objects  to  the  use  of  this 
word,  because  it  is  ambiguous,  and  not  sufficiently  com- 
prehensive, and  prefers  the  term  "  satisfaction,"  which 
"  is  the  word  which  for  ages  has  been  generally  used  to 
designate  the  special  work  of  Christ  in  the  salvation  of 
men. 

"By  the  satisfaction. of  Christ,"  he  continues,  "is 
meant  all  he  has  done  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the 
law  and  justice  of  God,  in  the  place  and  in  behalf  of 
sinners."  The  first  part  of  this  clause  defines  atone- 
ment, the  second  defines  vicarious  atonement. 


298  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

"  There  are  two  kinds  of  satisfaction,  which,  as  they 
differ  essentially  in  their  nature  and  effects,  should  not 
be  confounded.  The  one  is  pecuniary  or  commercial, 
the  other  penal  or  forensic.  When  a  debtor  pays  the 
demands  of  his  creditor  in  full,  he  satisfies  his  claims, 
and  is  entirely  free  from  any  further  demands.  In  this 
case  the  thing  paid  is  the  precise  sum  due ;  it  is  a  sim- 
ple matter  of  commutative  justice ;  it  matters  not  to 
the  creditor  by  whom  the  debt  is  paid,  whether  by  the 
debtor  himself,  or  by  some  one  in  his  stead,  because  the 
claim  of  the  creditor  is  simply  upon  the  amount  due 
and  not  upon  the  person  of  the  debtor.  In  the  case  of 
crimes  the  matter  is  different.  The  demand  is  then 
upon  the  offender.  He  himself  is  amenable  to  justice. 
Substitution  in  human  courts  is  out  of  the  question. 
The  soul  that  sins,  it  shall  die.  And  the  penalty  need 
not  be,  and  rarely  is,  of  the  nature  of  the  injury  inflict- 
ed. All  that  is  required  is  that  it  should  be  a  just 
equivalent.  .  .  .  The  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  not  pe- 
cuniary, but  penal — a  satisfaction  for  sinners,  and  not 
for  those  who  owed  a  certain  amount  of  money." 

Our  author  then  defines  the  two  important  words, 
"  penalty  "  and  "  vicarious,"  as  follows  : 

"  The  words  penal  and  penalty  do  not  designate  any 
particular  kind  or  degree  of  suffering,  but  any  kind  or 
degree  which  is  judicially  inflicted  in  satisfaction  of 
justice.  .  .  .  By  vicarious  suffering  or  punishment  is  not 
meant  merely  suffering  endured  for  the  benefit  of 
others,  for  in  this  sense  the  sufferings  of  martyrs,  pa- 
triots, and  philanthropists  would  be  vicarious.  But 
this  word  includes  the  idea  of  substitution.  Vicarious 
suffering  is  suffering  endured  by  one  person  in  the 
stead  of  another — i.  e.,  in  his  place.     It  necessarily  sup- 


EVOLUTION  AND   TEE  ATONEMENT.        299 

poses  the  exemption  of  the  party  in  whose  place  the 
suffering  is  endured.  A  vicar  is  a  substitute,  one  who 
takes  the  place  of  another,  and  acts  in  his  stead,  as  the 
Pope  is  said  to  do  when  he  assumes  to  be  the  vicar  of 
Christ  on  earth."  *  According  to  this  elaborate  defi- 
nition, then,  the  atonement  of  Christ  consisted  in  his 
satisfying  the  demands  of  God's  violated  law  by  suffer- 
ing the  penalty  of  such  violation  in  the  stead  or  in  the 
place  of  man.  Dr.  Hodge  claims,  and  that  truly,  that 
"  the  symbols  of  the  Lutheran  and  Keformed  Churches 
agree  entirely  in  their  statement  of  this  doctrine."  But, 
as  already  stated,  there  are  modifications  of  this  doc- 
trine prevalent  in  the  theological  schools,  the  most  im- 
portant of  which,  perhaps,  being  that  affecting  the  no- 
tion that  Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  sin.  The  idea  that 
an  innocent  being  should  bear  the  punishment  due  to 
the  guilty  is  so  contrary  to  all  reason  that  many  emi- 
nent theologians  hold  that  Christ  did  not  bear  the  pen- 
alty but  only  the  burden  of  sin.  They  seem  to  mean 
this :  He,  the  Holy  One,  came  into  this  world  to  do 
God's  will — to  do  what  man  had  failed  to  do — i.  e.,  ful- 
fill the  Divine  Law.  He,  perceiving  as  no  man  ever 
did  the  awful  heinousness  of  his  brethren's  sin,  suffered 
in  spirit  on  their  account,  somewhat  as  a  good  man  is 
(as  we  say)  bowed  down  beneath  the  burden  of  an  err- 
ing brother's  sin,  and  in  his  attempts  to  rescue  man 
from  sin  and  its  punishment  he  laid  down  his  life.  His 
suffering  and  death  therefore  were  not,  strictly  speak- 
ing, the  penalty  but  merely  the  consequence  of  sin. 
There  is  a  great  difference  between  bearing  the  penalty 
and  bearing  the  consequence  of  sin.     Penalty  or  pun- 

*  Hodge's  "  Systematic  Theology,"  vol.  ii,  pp.  464-591. 


300  EVOLUTION'  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

isliment  is  suffering  inflicted  upon  an  offender  for  his 
crime  ;  but  as  Christ  was  not  an  offender — was  an  inno- 
cent Person — He  could  not  be  justly  punished.  If  a 
brave  man  attempts  to  rescue  another  from  drowning 
and  dies  in  the  attempt,  we  do  not  say  his  death  was  a 
punishment,  but  rather  that  it  was  the  consequence  of 
his  act.  So  Christ  came  into  collision  wTith  the  world's 
evil  in  attempting  to  save  his  brethren  in  the  flesh  from 
sin,  and  he  suffered  the  consequence — persecution  and 
death.  "  He  approached  the  whirling  wheel  and  was 
torn  in  pieces."  It  will  be  perceived  at  once  that  this  is 
a  great  advance  on  the  dogma  advocated  by  Dr.  Hodge. 
It  not  only  gets  rid  of  the  horribly  irrational  idea  that 
God  inflicted  suffering  upon  an  innocent  being  for  the 
sins  of  others,  but  it  also  disposes  of  the  equally  incredi- 
ble notion  that  the  all-good  and  all-merciful  God  could 
be  satisfied  with  suffering  as  such.  We  can  never  be- 
lieve that  pain  of  any  kind  which  any  being  endures 
can  give  any  satisfaction  to  a  good  God.  Even  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  vilest  wretch  on  earth  afford  no  satisfac- 
tion to  God  ;  they  are  not  what  He  desires.  He  wants 
man  to  do  his  will — to  ooey,  rather  than  to  suffer.  This 
and  this  alone  can  satisfy  Divine  Justice  and  Love ; 
and  since  the  Calvinistic  dogma  furnishes  as  an  equiva- 
lent for  the  violation  of  God's  law  what  He  does  not 
want,  viz.,  suffering,  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  teaches 
that  this  suffering  was  inflicted  on  the  wrong  man — the 
Holy  One — it  must  be  rejected. 

Evolution  so  exalts  our  idea  of  Deity  as  to  preclude 
such  a  doctrine  as  that  enunciated  by  Calvinism  and 
held  by  the  great  mass  of  Christians.  It  reveals  a  God 
of  infinite  wisdom,  power,  justice,  and  love,  who  resides 
in  and  presides  over  all  Nature,  and  such  a  being  can 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  ATONEMENT.         301 

not  either  inflict  punishment  upon  an  innocent  person 
for  the  sins  of  others,  or  accept  the  self-inflicted  suffer- 
ing of  such  an  one  as  a  satisfaction  for  the  violation  of 
his  law. 

But  not  only  does  Evolution  explode  the  Calvinistic 
dogma  of  the  Atonement  by  showing  its  inconsistency 
with  any  true  idea  of  God ;  it  disposes  of  it  more  ef- 
fectually perhaps  by  showing  that  it  is  a  relic  of  bar- 
barism. 

Mr.  Spencer  argues  that  "  propitiations  of  deities 
were  developed  from  propitiations  of  the  dead."  The 
idea  that  death  was  merely  a  long-suspended  animation 
led  to  the  deposition  with  the  corpse  of  food,  drink, 
and  other  things,  and  these  offerings  to  the  dead  gradu- 
ally "  grew  into  sacrifices  and  libations  to  the  gods  ; 
while  immolations  of  victims,  blood-offerings,  mutila- 
tions, cuttings  off  of  hair,  originally  occurring  at  the 
grave,  occur  afterward  before  idols  and  as  marks  of 
fealty  to  a  deity."  * 

It  is  most  probable  that  we  have  the  origin  of 
sacrifices  here  truly  indicated ;  but,  however  this  may 
be,  we  know  that  the  idea  that  "  without  the  shedding 
of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins"  prevailed 
throughout  the  ancient  world  and  prevails  among  mod- 
ern savages  as  well  as  among  Christians.  "Alike  in 
sunny  Greece,  and  stately  Home,  and  apostatizing 
Israel,  and  scorching  Africa,  and  in  the  far  sweet 
islands  of  the  sea,  to  hideous  emblems  of  some  savage 
deity — a  Moloch,  an  Odin  and  Atua,  a  Sheeva ;  in  the 
rushing  stream,  or  the  molten  furnace,  or  on  the  blade 
of  the  consecrated  sword,  has  the  blood  of  man  been 

*  Spencer's  "  Sociology,"  i,  chap.  xix. 


302  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

shed  in  abominable  sacrifices,  or  his  life  robbed  of  all 
health  and  joy  in  horrible  self-torture."  * 

There  were  two  kinds  of  sacrifices  generally  prevalent 
in  the  ancient  world,  viz.,  honorific  zudpiacular  sacrifices. 

The  first  consisted  of  gifts — fruits,  grain,  wine,  oil, 
the  flesh  of  animals,  etc. — which  were  offered  to  the 
deity.  We  have  a  striking  instance  of  such  an  offering 
in  Exodus,  xxiii,  15,  where  the  rule  is  laid  down  that 
no  one  is  to  appear  before  Jehovah  empty-handed. 
But  we  are  more  especially  concerned  with  the  piacular 
sacrifices.  u  Among  all  primitive  people  there  are  cer- 
tain offenses  against  piety,  especially  bloodshed  within 
the  kin,  which  are  regarded  as  properly  inexpiable: 
the  offender  must  die  or  become  an  outlaw.  Where 
the  god  of  the  kin  appears  as  vindicator  of  this  law,  he 
demands  the  life  of  the  culprit.  If  the  kinsmen  re- 
fuse this,  they  share  the  guilt.  Thus  the  execution 
of  a  criminal  assumes  the  character  of  a  religious  ac- 
tion. If,  now,  it  appears  in  any  way  that  the  god  is 
offended  and  refuses  to  help  his  people,  it  is  concluded 
that  a  crime  has  been  committed,  and  not  expiated. 
This  neglect  must  be  repaired,  and,  if  the  true  culprit 
can  not  be  found  or  can  not  be  spared,  the  worshipers 
as  a  whole  bear  the  guilt  until  they  or  the  guilty  man 
himself  finds  a  substitute.  The  idea  of  substitution  is 
wide-spread  through  all  early  religions,  and  is  found  in 
honorific  as  well  as  piacular  sacrifices ;  the  Romans,  for 
example,  substituted  models  in  wax  or  dough  for  vic- 
tims that  could  not  be  procured  according  to  the  ritual, 
or  feigned  that  a  sheep  was  a  stag,  and  the  like."  f 

*  Farrar's  "  Silence  and  Voices  of  God,"  pp.  99,  100. 
f  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Sacrifices." 


EVOLUTION'  AND   THE  ATONEMENT.        303 

Such  notions  were  imbibed,  first  by  the  Israelites  and 
then  by  the  Christians,  and  so  we  are  to-day  drinking 
from  a  stream  whose  fountain-head  lies  far  away  among 
the  mountains  of  the  East.  Abraham  came  from  '*  Ur 
of  the  Chaldees,"  the  capital  of  a  large  empire  wholly 
given  to  idolatry.  In  his  native  land  he  was  ac- 
customed to  see  the  smoke  of  even  human  sacrifices 
ascend  to  the  gods ;  "  households,  in  times  of  special 
trouble,  presenting  their  eldest  son  as  a  burnt-offering 
for  the  sins  of  the  family."  *  And  although  Abraham 
when  tempted  to  do  the  same  thing  (Gen.,  xxii),  did  not 
yield  to  the  temptation ;  although,  in  this  case,  we  have 
an  advance  in  the  spiritual  evolution  of  this  people, 
yet  sacrifices  continued  to  be  offered  in  Israel,  and  the 
practice  was  strengthened  by  the  nation's  experience 
and  contact  with  other  nations — especially  Egypt.  As 
a  result  of  the  Egyptian  bondage,  the  sacrificial  system 
was  fully  developed,  embodying  among  other  striking 
rites  that  of  the  Passover,  which  offered  an  admirable 
framework  for  the  subsequent  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
atonement. 

"  The  preaching  of  the  prophets  was  a  constant  pro- 
test against  the  grosser  forms  of  sacrifices,  and  there 
are  indications  that,  when  Christianity  arose,  bloody 
sacrifices  were  already  beginning  to  fall  into  disuse.  A 
saying  that  was  attributed  to  our  Lord  repeats  this  pro- 
test in  a  strong  form :  '  I  have  come  to  abolish  the 
sacrifices,  and,  if  ye  do  not  cease  from  sacrificing,  the 
wrath  of  God  will  not  cease  from  you.'  Among  the 
Greeks  the  philosophers  had  come  to  use  both  argu- 
ment and  ridicule  against  the  idea  that  the  offering  of 

*  Geikie's  "  Hours  with  the  Bible,"  i,  chap,  xviii. 


304  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

natural  things  could  be  needed  by  or  acceptable  to  the 
Maker  of  them  all.  Among  both  Jews  and  Greeks 
the  earlier  forms  of  the  idea  had  been  rationalized  into 
the  belief  that  the  most  appropriate  offering  to  God  is 
that  of  a  pure  and  penitent  heart,  and  among  them  both 
was  the  idea  that  the  vocal  expression  of  contrition  in 
prayer  or  of  gratitude  in  praise  is  also  acceptable.  The 
best  instances  of  these  ideas  in  the  Old  Testament  are 
in  Psalms  1  and  li,  and  in  Greek  literature  the  striking 
words  which  Porphyry  quotes  from  an  earlier  writer : 
'  We  ought,  then,  having  been  united  and  made  like 
to  God,  to  offer  our  own  conduct  as  a  holy  sacrifice 
to  Him,  the  same  being  also  a  hymn  and  our  salva- 
tion in  passionless  excellence  of  souV  The  ideas  are 
also  found  both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the 
early  Christian  literature  :  '  Let  us  offer  up  a  sacrifice 
of  praise  to  God  continually,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  the 
lips  which  make  confession  to  His  name '  (Heb.,  xiii, 
15).  '  That  prayers  and  thanksgivings,  made  by  worthy 
persons,  are  the  only  perfect  and  acceptable  sacrifices, 
I  also  admit'  (Justin  Martyr,  Trypho,  chap,  cxvii). 
"  We  honor  God  in  prayer,  and  offer  this  as  the  best 
and  holiest  sacrifice  with  righteousness  to  the  righteous 
Word"  (Clement  of  Alexandria,  Strom,  vii,  6).* 

This,  then,  is  about  what  Evolution  has  to  say  on  the 
subject  of  the  Atonement :  It  flrst  shows  how  the  doc- 
trine of  sacrifice  originated  from  the  low  idea  that  God 
was  a  sort  of  man,  who  must  be  pacified  as  an  offended 
earthly  ruler  is,  either  by  gifts  or  the  suffering  of  the 
offender.  The  idea  of  substitution  also  originated  from 
the  fact  that  in  barbarous   societies  the  offender  was 


*  "  Encylopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Sacrifices." 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  ATONEMENT.         305 

allowed  to  furnish  a  substitute.     Hence  the  notion  of 
"  vicarious  atonement." 

Secondly.  Evolution  so  exalts  our  idea  of  Deity  as 
to  preclude  such  a  dogma.  It  purges  this  idea  of  its 
low  anthropomorphism  and  reveals  a  God  of  Infinite 
"Wisdom,  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  all  things,  "  who 
dwelleth  not  in  temples  made  with  hands;  neither  is 
worshiped  with  men's  hands,  as  though  He  needed  any- 
thing, seeing  He  giveth  to  all  life,  and  breath,  and  all 
things"  (Acts,  xvii,  24,  25).  It  tells  us  that  the  ancient 
law  of  sacrifices  was  a  mere  "  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  things,  and  those 
sacrifices,  which  were  offered  year  by  year  continually 
could  never  make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect.  .  .  . 
For  it  is  not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats 
(or  even  of  man)  could  take  away  sins.  Wherefore  when 
He  (Jesus)  cometh  into  the  world,  he  saith,  Sacrifice 
an  offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou 
prepared  me :  in  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  for  sin 
thou  hast  had  no  pleasure.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  come  to 
do  thy  will,  O  God.  .  .  .  He  taketh  away  the  first,  that 
he  may  establish  the  second  (Hebrews,  x,  1-9,  etc.).  Ob- 
serve, a  second  sort  of  atonement  is  established.  Evolu- 
tion does  not  simply  tear  down,  "  take  away,"  the  old 
view ;  it  gives  us  a  higher  and  better  doctrine  in  its 
place.  That  doctrine,  as  gathered  from  Reason  and 
Revelation,  seems  to  be  this :  Man  is  a  sinner — i.  e.,  a 
being  endowed  with  the  power  to  obey  or  disobey  Di- 
vine Law ;  who  does  disobey  that  law.  He  therefore 
suffers,  as  a  natural,  necessary  consequence,  certain  ill 
effects  which  we  call  punishment.  How  shall  he  escape 
from  such  punishment  ?  By  escaping  from  sin,  and 
hj  no  other  means.     God,  his  Father,  therefore  sends 


306  EVOLUTION-  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Jesus  to  save  His  people  from  their  sins  (Matthew, 
i,  21)  first  by  setting  them  an  example  of  perfect  obedi- 
ence to  God's  will,  and  then  by  assigning  a  motive  to 
virtue  strong  enough  to  enable  men  to  live  soberly, 
righteously,  and  godly. 

That  motive  is  the  fatherly  love  of-  God  toward 
man  /  which  love  was  manifested  in  the  mission  and 
person  of  Jesus. 

Does  this  view  satisfy  all  the  demands  of  the  case  ? 
First,  it  gets  rid  of  the  low  idea  that  God  is  a  Being 
who  can  be  "  satisfied  "  with  suffering — who  will  accept, 
as  an  equivalent  for  the  violation  of  His  moral  law,  pain, 
physical  and  mental ;  and  it  teaches  instead  that  "  to  obey 
is  better  than  sacrifice"  (I  Samuel,  xv,  22) — that  God 
wants  justice,  mercy,  and  humility  (Micah,  vi,  8)  rather 
than  suffering.  It  holds  that  the  full  and  perfect  oper- 
ation of  God's  laws — i.  e.,  absolute  obedience  to  them — 
must  redound  to  the  welfare  of  the  universe,  especially 
of  man. 

Secondly.  It  gets  rid  of  the  heathenish  idea  that  an 
innocent  being  may  be  substituted  in  place  of  the  guilty, 
and  emphasizes  the  grand  and  just  truth  that  "  whatso- 
ever a  man  soweth  that  shall  he"  and  not  another, 
" reap "  ;  "  the  soul  that  sinneth,  it"  and  not  another, 
must  suffer  the  penalty,  and  the  only  satisfacton  which  it 
can  make  to  God  is  to  quit  sinning  and  keep  His  com- 
mandments. The  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  especially  his 
death,  it  holds,  was  not  a  punishment  for  others'  sin, 
but  merely  the  consequence  of  his  undertaking  to  do 
God's  will  in  the  midst  of  a  wicked  world.  We  should, 
therefore,  speak  of  his  blood  not  as  itself  the  atoning 
element  in  his  work,  but  as  the  symbol  of  that  love  of 
Divine  Justice  and  Humanity  which  led  him  to  lay 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  ATONEMENT.         307 

down    his  life  in  attempting  to   obey  the  will  of  his 
Father  and  to  save  his  brethren  in  the  flesh  from  sin. 

Third.  It  freely  satisfies  the  demand  that  past  vio- 
lations of  the  Divine  Law,  whether  racial  or  individual, 
be  atoned  for,  by  citing  the  perfect  obedience  to  that 
law  of  One  individual  which  is  the  earnest  of  the  per- 
fect obedience  of  all  his  disciples. 

Fourth.  It  fully  recognizes  the  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  ordinary  human  beings  fulfilling  the  Divine 
Law,  and  provides  the  only  motive  power  which  has 
ever  enabled  any  one  to  keep  that  law,  viz.,  Divine  Love. 
Of  course,  any  one  is  at  liberty  to  deny  the  sufficiency 
of  this  motive  power,  but  he  will  be  unable  to  find  a 
.more  effective  incentive. 

Finally.  It  gives  due  weight  to  fear  as  a  motive  to 
right  conduct  by  insisting  that,  if  a  man  sow  the  wind, 
he  must  reap  the  whirlwind  (Hosea,  viii,  7 ;  Galatians, 
vi,  7). 

This  view  of  the  Atonement  will  doubtless  be  brand- 
ed as  Socinianism  or  something  worse  ;  but  I  am  not  con- 
cerned with  such  charges,  for  it  is  high  time  to  have 
done  with  the  despicable  mode  of  refuting  certain  theo- 
ries by  pointing  out  their  connection  with  some  sup- 
posed "heresy."  Only  weak  minds  are  excusable  for 
resorting  to  this  method  of  answering  an  opponent ;  fcr 
it  is  obvious  that  the  question  in  every  case  is  not,  Who 
is  the  author  of  such  and  such  a  view  %  but  simply  and 
only,  Is  it  true  f  And  in  attempting  to  answer  this 
question,  in  the  present  case,  let  no  one  appeal  to  the 
mere  letter  of  Holy  Scripture,  and,  by  stringing  to- 
gether a  few  disjointed  texts,  try  to  refute  the  above 
theory  of  the  Atonement.  This  is  the  popular  method 
of  arguing  on  this  and  other  subjects.     Their  profound- 

15 


308  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

ly  mysterious  character — their  utter  incomprehensibility 
— is  first  asserted,  and  then  it  is  urged  that  we  must 
"  bow  to  the  authority  of  Scripture,"  which  generally 
means  nothing  more  than  the  authority  of  the  particular 
interpreter  of  Scripture  who  happens  to  be  arguing  on 
the  given  subject.  But  this  sort  of  argumentation  will 
not  satisfy  an  intelligent,  independent  thinker,  especially 
of  the  Evolutionist  school. 

He  will  urge  that,  while  there  are  great  mysteries  in 
life  yet  we  quite  understand  the  origin  of  certain  dog- 
mas ;  we  can  explain  the  naturalness  of  their  rise,  and 
thus  show  that  they  are  man-made  riddles  rather  than 
real  mysteries.  He  will  urge  that  the  Bible  is  merely 
the  record — the  paper  equivalent — of  certain  thoughts. 
to  which  holy  men  of  old  gave  expression  ;  and  so  he 
will  go  hack  of  the  record  to  the  original— to  the  human 
mind  who  conceived  the  thoughts  it  contains,  and  he 
will  compare  these  thoughts  with  the  thoughts  of  other 
ancient  and  modern  religious  minds  and  judge  of  their 
rationality.  If  they  prove  to  be  rational  and  credible, 
he  will  accept  them  ;  if  not,  he  will  not  accept  them, 
even  though  they  be  venerable  with  age  and  authority. 

This  is  the  issue  which  the  Evolutionist  presents  to 
the  dogmatic  Traditionalist,  and  hence  I  have  not  at- 
tempted to  prove  any  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  by 
an  appeal  to  the  letter  of  Holy  Scripture.  I  have 
merely  defined  the  popular  dogma,  traced  its  historical 
development,  shown  its  irrationality  in  the  light  of 
evolution,  and  attempted  to  formulate  a  theory,  which 
seems  to  meet  the  demands  of  a  philosophical  theology 
or  rather  soteriology. 

No  one  realizes  more  fully  than  I  do  that  the  ground 
whereon  I  stand  is  holy — that  the  subject  in  hand  is  one 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  ATONEMENT.         309 

of  supreme  practical  importance  to  the  human  race  ;  and 
so  I  have  tried  to  discuss  it  candidly  and  reverently. 
No  one  realizes  more  fully  than  I  dc  how  deep  and  ter- 
rible  is  the  pain  of  a  thoroughly  aroused  sinful  con- 
science, how  earnestly  the  awakened  sinner  longs  for  a 
Saviour ;  and  since  this,  the  practical  side  of  the  Atone- 
ment, is  so  important,  I  may  be  pardoned  for  giving  my 
own  experience  in  this  matter,  in  the  hope  that  others 
may  be  helped  to  a  right  apprehension  of  their  relation 
to  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 

I  became  a  Christian  when  sixteen  years  of  age, 
being  aroused  from  a  youthful  indifference  to  religion 
by  reading  Baxter's  "  Call  to  the  Unconverted."  ~  Of 
course,  from  such  a  beginning  I  very  naturally  passed 
on  to  an  acceptance  of  the  whole  of  traditional  theology, 
especially  the  dogmas  of  endless  punishment,  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  and  the  atonement  by  substitution.  Still 
I  continued  to  sin  after  my  "  conversion,"  and  conse- 
quently suffered  much  pain  and  anxiety  about  my  con- 
dition. This  anxiety  was  completely  removed,  how- 
ever, by  reading  a  sermon  on  "  Justification  by  Faith  " 
from  the  words,  "  Therefore,  we  conclude  that  a  man  is 
justified  by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law "  (Ko- 
mans,  hi,  28).  The  word  "  law  "  was  defined  to  mean 
natural  as  well  as  revealed  (Biblical)  law,  and  it  was 
argued  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  "  without 
regard  to  any  law,  whether  natural  or  revealed."  In 
short,  this  sermon,  though  preached  by  an  Episcopalian 
divine,  was  a  thorough  exposition  of  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith  alone.  This  sermon  set 
my  conscience  at  rest  as  nothing  else  had  done,  and  I 
concluded  that  all  I  had  to  do  was  to  believe  in  Jesus 
as  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  men,  and  do  the 


310  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

best  I  could  (whatever  that  might  be),  and  I  would  be 
saved.  I  began  my  ministry  with  this  idea,  and  many 
a  restless  soul  has  been  quieted  by  this  theology ;  but  it 
is  needless  to  say  that  my  views  on  this  subject  have 
undergone  a  change.  I  no  longer  believe  that  Jesus 
bore  the  penalty  due  my  sins,  but  I  know  that  I  must 
suffer  the  consequences — the  penalty — of  my  own  sin  ; 
that  whatsoever  I  sow,  that  I  shall  also  reap.  I  no  longer 
believe  that  the  sort  of  faith  which  popular  orthodoxy 
advocates  can  justify  a  man.  I  do  believe  that  a  man 
is  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  but  it  is  a  faith  that  has 
less  regard  to  Christ's  nature  and  work  than  to  his  holi- 
ness. The  faith  that  will  justify  and  save  us  is  the 
faith  by  which  Christ's  holy  character  is  formed  within 
us — a  faith  which  produces  repentance  of  sin,  love  of 
God,  and  love  of  man.  This  and  this  alone  can  save  us, 
and  if  we  have  such  faith  we  shall  be  happy  forever, 
whether  we  believe  the  traditional  view  of  Christ's  na- 
ture and  work  or  not. 

In  looking  back  over  my  experience  I  ask,  Why 
was  it  that  I  suffered  so  before  reading  the  sermon  re- 
ferred to,  and  why  has  not  that  suffering  returned  since 
I  have  rejected  the  views  it  advocated  ?  The  simple 
answer  is,  I  got  the  wrong  idea  of  God  in  the  first  place. 
I  was  taught  at  my  mother's  knee  to  pray,  "  Our  Father, 
who  art  in  heaven,"  but  that  blessed  truth— the  Father- 
hood of  God— was  obscured  by  the  fire  and  brimstone 
gospel  which  I  heard  proclaimed  from  the  pulpit.  God 
was  held  up,  not  as  one  who  pitieth  us  more  than  an 
earthly  father  pitieth  his  children,  but  He  was  set  forth 
as  a  stern  judge  who  was  ready  to  cast  us  into  a  lake  of 
fire  that  burnetii  forever  for  the  slightest  offense.  "  He 
that  offendeth  in  one  point  is  guilty  of  the  whole,"  it 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  ATONEMENT.         311 

was  urged,  and  so  I  became  deeply  alarmed  at  the  pros- 
pect before  me — an  implacable  Judge  and  an  endless 
hell.  Just  here  the  sermon  came,  assuring  me  that 
"  Jesns  paid  it  all,  all  the  debt  I  owe,"  and  hence  I  had 
nothing  to  do  but  to  believe  and  I  should  be  saved,  and 
so  I  found  rest  for  my  soul.  But  I  now  see  that  that 
rest  would  have  been  mine  all  along  if  the  heavenly 
Father  had  been  held  up  before  my  eyes  in  all  his  glori- 
ous attractiveness. 

Hence  I  urge  all  those  who  may  fancy  that  any 
other  theory  of  the  Atonement  than  that  which  substi- 
tutes Jesus  in  our  place,  and  makes  him  bear  the  pun- 
ishment due  our  sins,  can  not  afford  us  comfort  and 
peace  of  soul  to  consider  this  experience,  which  is  given, 
not  because  I  would  obtrude  my  inner  experience  upon 
their  attention  (for  this  is  far  from  pleasant),  but  because 
it  is  one  of  many  experiences  which  prove  to  demon- 
stration that  Traditionalism  is  not  the  only  anchorage 
for  the  sin-tossed  soul.  Let  us  believe  firmly  in  the 
God  of  Love,  let  us  accept  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the 
finite  manifestation,  the  positive,  objective,  historical 
proof  of  Divine  Love ;  let  us  repent  of  our  sins  as  they 
are  committed,  and  strive  to  overcome  them  by  prayer 
and  effort,  until  Christ  shall  be  formed  into  us  (Galatians 
iv,  19),  and  we  need  fear  nothing  here  or  hereafter.* 

*  Consult  on  the  subject  of  this  chapter  McLeod  Campbell  on 
"  The  Nature  of  the  Atonement "  ;  «  A  Symposium  on  the  Atone- 
ment," by  Farrar,  etc.  (Whittaker,  New  York) ;  Canon  Medd's  "  One 
Mediator,"  "Bampton  Lectures"  for  1882;  Van  Oosterzee's  "Christian 
Dogmatics "  ;  Martensen's  "  Christian  Dogmatics,"  and  other  sys- 
tems of  theology.  Compare  Maurice's  "  Theological  Essays,"  N.o. 
VII ;  Robertson's  "  Sermons,"  No.  IX  (1st  series)  No.  VII  (3d  series) 
and  No.  XX  (4th  series),  Liddon,  "  University  Sermons,"  1st  series, 
No.  IX,  etc.,  etc. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

EVOLUTION  I     HEAVEN  AND    HELL. 

Nothing  more  decisively  indicates  the  intellectual 
progress  of  this  century  than  the  change  which  has  come 
over  the  popular  views  of  heaven  and  hell.  In  the 
days  of  the  fathers  the  imagination  reveled  in  the  most 
excruciating  and  irrational  pictures  of  hell.  Listen  to 
this  horrible  caricature  of  a  great  truth  :  "  God's  heavy 
hand  shall  press  the  sanies  and  the  intolerableness,  the 
obliquity  and  the  unreasonableness,  the  amazement  and 
the  disorder,  the  smart  and  the  sorrow,  the  guilt  and 
the  punishment  out  from  all  our  sins  and  pour  them  into 
one  chalice,  and  mingle  them  with  an  infinite  wrath,  and 
make  the  wicked  drink  off  all  the  vengeance,  and  force 
it  clown  their  unwilling  throats,  with  the  violence  of 
devils  and  accursed  spirits."  *  Again,  we  are  assured 
that  "  when  Iniquity  hath  played  her  part,  all  the 
Furies  of  Hell  leap  upon  the  man's  heart,  like  a  stage. 
Thought  calleth  to  Fear ;  Fear  whistleth  to  Horror ; 
Horror  beckoneth  to  Despair,  and  saith,  Come  and  help 
me  torment  this  sinner.  Irons  are  laid  upon  his  body, 
like  a  prisoner.  All  his  lights  are  put  out  at  once. 
'  Give  us  a  millstone,'  say  the  damned, '  as  large  as  the 


*  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  quoted  in  Farrar's  "  Eternal  Hope,"  p. 
61. 


EVOLUTION:   HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  313 

whole  earth,  and  so  wide  in  circumference  as  to  touch 
the  sky  all  around,  and  let  a  little  bird  come  once  in  a 
hundred  thousand  years  and  pick  oft'  a  small  particle  of 
the  stone  not  larger  than  the  tenth  part  of  a  grain  of 
millet,  and  after  another  hundred  thousand  years  let 
him  come  again,  so  that  in  ten  hundred  thousand  years 
he  would  pick  off  as  much  as  a  grain  of  millet :  we 
wretched  sinners  would  desire  nothing  but  that  thus 
the  stone  might  have  an  end,  and  thus  our  pains  also.'  "  * 
To  these  and  similar  passages  quoted  in  his  eloquent  and 
popular  little  book  of  sermons  on  the  future  life,  Arch- 
deacon Farrar  adds,  in  his  able  work,  "Mercy  and 
Judgment,"  many  other  quotations  from  eminent  di- 
vines of  all  ages,  beginning  with  St.  Cyprian  (a.  d. 
258)  and  ending  with  John  Forster  (1843),  all  of  whom 
speak  to  the  same  effect,  and  teach  that "  souls  are  to  be 
plunged  into  a  material  hell-hre,  miraculously  created 
or  kept  aflame,  and  to  be  tormented  with  excruciating 
physical  pangs  during  billions  of  ages  for  every  second 
of  sin,  while  saints  and  angels  rejoice  at  their  suffer- 
ings. .  .  .  These  views,"  our  author  adds,  "  are  at  pres- 
ent half  asserted  and  half  believed  by  some ;  and  mul- 
titudes, especially  of  the  poor  and  ignorant,  who  neither 
assert  nor  believe  them,  yet  suppose  that  they  are  a 
part  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church."  On  another 
page  he  quotes  this  dreadful  passage  from  Jonathan 
Edwards :  "  The  pit  is  prepared,  the  fire  is  made  ready, 
the  furnace  is  now  hot,  ready  to  receive  the  wicked ; 
the  flames  do  now  rage  and  glow.  The  God  that  holds 
you  over  the  pit  of  hell,  much  in  the  same  way  as  one 
holds  a  spider  or  some  loathsome  insect,  abhors  you  and 

*  "  Eternal  Hope,"  pp.  62,  67. 


314:   EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

is  dreadfully  provoked.  He  will  trample  them  beneath 
His  feet  with  inexpressible  fierceness  ;  He  will  crush 
their  blood  out  and  will  make  it  fly,  so  that  it  will 
sprinkle  his  garments  and  stain  all  his  raiment"  (Ed- 
wards's "Works,"  vii,  p.  499).  "  You  can  not  stand  be- 
fore an  infuriated  tiger  even ;  what,  then,  will  you  do 
when  God  rushes  against  you  in  all  His  wrath  \ "  ("  Sin- 
ners in  the  Hands  of  an  Angry  God  ").  "  Let  it  not  be 
said,"  Dr.  Farrar  adds,  "that  religious  teachers  have 
long  repented  of  unconscious  blasphemies  like  these,  for 
this  very  sermon  has  been  lately  printed  and  circulated 
as  a  tract,  to  the  delight  of  all  who  love  to  watch  the 
spread  of  infidelity."  * 

Of  course,  it  has  been  said  (and  doubtless  will  be 
said  again)  that  "  these  pictures  and  descriptions  come 
only  from  a  few  writers  of  past  generations,  and  those 
only  the  most  passionate  and  the  most  vulgar."  While 
it  is  true  that  but  few  intelligent  and  learned  preach- 
ers of  the  present  merciful  and  philanthropic  age  boldly 
declare  their  belief  in  a  material  hell  and  endless  pun- 
ishment ;  while  they  for  the  most  part  keep  this  dogma 
in  the  background  and  assert  it  with  many  qualifications 
and  explanations,  yet  the  endlessness  of  punishment  is 
still  considered  by  the  vast  majority  of  Christians, 
the  "  orthodox  view;"  while  occasionally  we  find  a  the- 
ologian bold  enough  not  only  to  assert  this  "ortho- 
dox"^) dogma,  but  even  to  accept,  or  at  least  incline 
to  accept,  the  idea  of  a  material  hell.  Thus,  so  late  as 
1887  Messrs.  Funk  and  Wagnalls  published  a  book  by 
the  Rev.  J.  B.  Reimensnyder,  a  Lutheran  clergyman, 
entitled  "  Doom  Eternal,"  in  which  the  doctrine  of  end- 

*  "  Mercy  and  Judgment,"  chap.  iv. 


EVOLUTION:  HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  315 

less  punishment  was  not  only  maintained,  but  in  answer 
to  the  question,  "  Is  hell-fire  a  material  one  ?  "  the  author 
says :  "  The  Bible  describes  it  as  such,  .  .  .  and  yet 
that  these  descriptions  may  he  figurative  (italics  his)  we 
are  not  prepared  positively  to  deny,  although  the  proba- 
bilities favor  their  literalness.  .  .  .  Whether  literal  or 
figurative,"  he  adds,  "  whether  material  or  spiritual,  they 
are  none  the  less  real"  He  then  quotes  and  empha- 
sizes Dr.  Yan  Oosterzee's  question,  "  Who  shall  say  that 
the  reality  will  not  infinitely  surpass  in  awf ulness  the 
boldest  pictures  of  it?"*  Both  of  these  theologians 
say  that  "  Holy  Scripture  requires  us  to  believe  in  a 
properly  so-called  place  of  punishment "  ;  and  when  we 
thus  find  professional  and  acknowledged  leaders  in  the 
theological  world  maintaining  such  low,  heathenish 
views  of  hell,  it  is  surely  unnecessary  to  apologize  for 
exposing  and  refuting  those  views.  Whatever  refine- 
ments of  this  crude  dogma  may  prevail  in  the  theo- 
logical shcools,  yet  its  central  contention,  viz.,  that  the 
wicked  shall  be  punished  forever  with  spiritual  if  not 
material  sufferings,  is,  as  already  stated,  generally  con- 
sidered the  "  orthodox  view,"  and  there  is  no  surer  way 
of  gaining  the  desirable  label  of  "  heretic "  than  by 
opposing  this  dogma.  On  this  subject,  however,  as 
well  as  on  some  other  so-called  "  orthodox  "  doctrines, 
we  are  glad  to  be  considered  heretical.  Evolution  re- 
futes this  tenet  of  popular  theology,  not  merely  by  ex- 
alting our  ideas  of  Deity  and  tracing  the  doctrine  to 
heathenism,  but  its  fundamental  postulate  seems  utterly 
inconsistent  with  the  notion  of  the  eternity  of  evil. 

*  "  Doom  Eternal,"   pp.  191-194 ;   cf.  Van  Oosterzee's  "  Chris- 
tian Dogmatics,"  vol.  ii,  p.  790. 


316  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

It  teaches  that  the  whole  creation  is  moving  forward 
and  npward  from  a  state  of  imperfection  to  perfection, 
and  hence  the  conclusion  seems  inevitable  that  the  day 
is  coming  when  there  shall  be  "  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness,"  and  righteous- 
ness alone,  when  "  God  shall  be  all  and  in  allP  In 
the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  chapters  of  his  "  Principles 
of  Sociology  "  Mr.  Spencer  sketches  the  evolution  of 
the  idea  of  another  life  and  another  world.  From  him 
we  learn  that  the  belief  in  another  life  is  originally 
qualified  and  partial : 

"  The  second  life  may  (it  is  believed)  be  brought  to 
a  violent  end ;  the  dead  man's  double  may  be  killed 
afresh  in  battle  ;  or  may  be  destroyed  on  its  way  to  the 
land  of  the  dead ;  or  may  be  devoured  by  the  gods. 
Further,  there  is  in  some  cases  a  caste-limitation ;  in 
Tonga  it  is  supposed  that  only  the  chiefs  have  souls." 
The  after-life  "  is  supposd  to  differ  from  nothing  in  this 
life."  The  dead  require  provisions,  food,  clothes,  arms, 
companions,  etc.  Hence  these  things  are  deposited  with 
the  corpse,  and  wives,  slaves,  and  friends  are  slain  at  the 
pyre  or  grave  to  bear  company  to  the  departed.  In 
social  arrangements,  also,  the  future  life  is  like  this. 
"  Subordination,  both  domestic  and  public,  is  expected 
to  be  the  same  hereafter  as  here."  Not  only  do  such 
ideas  prevail  among  modern  savages,  many  instances  of 
which  Mr.  Spencer  cites,  but  the  conceptions  of  higher 
races  are  essentially  the  same.  "  The  legend  of  the  de- 
scent of  Ishtar,  the  Assyrian  Yenus,  shows  us  that  the 
residence  of  the  Assyrian  dead  had,  like  Assyria,  its 
despotic  ruler,  with  officers  levying  tribute.  So,  too,  in 
the  under-world  of  the  Greeks,  we  have  the  dread 
Aides,  with  his  wife  Persephone,  as  rulers ;   we  have 


EVOLUTION:   HEAVEN  AND  BELL.  317 

Minos  '  giving  sentence  from  his  throne  to  the  dead, 
while  they  sat  and  stood  around  the  prince,  asking  his 
doom ' ;  and  Achilles  is  thus  addressed  by  Ulysses : 
'  For  of  old,  in  the  days  of  thy  life,  we  Argives  gave 
thee  one  honor  with  the  gods,  and  now  thou  art  a  great 
prince,  here  among  the  dead.'  And  while  men  are 
thus  under  political  and  social  relations  like  those  of 
living  men,  so  are  the  celestials.  Zeus  stands  to  the 
rest  exactly  in  the  same  relation  that  an  absolute  mon- 
arch does  to  the  aristocracy  of  which  he  is  the  head. 

"  ISTor  did  Hebrew  ideas  of  another  life,  when  they 
arose,  fail  to  yield  like  analogies.  Originally  meaning 
simply  the  grave,  or,  in  a  vague  way,  the  place  or 
state  of  the  dead,  Sheol,  when  acquiring  the  more  defi- 
nite meaning  of  a  miserable  place  for  the  dead,  a  He- 
brew Hades,  and  afterward  developing  into  a  place  of 
torture,  Gehenna,  introduces  us  to  a  form  of  diabolical 
government  having  gradations.  And  though,  as  the 
conception  of  life  in  the  Hebrew  heaven  elaborated, 
the  ascribed  arrangements  did  not,  like  those  of  the 
Greeks,  parallel  terrestrial  arrangements  domestically, 
they  did  politically.  As  some  commentators  express  it, 
there  is  implied  a  i  court '  of  celestial  beings.  Some- 
times, as  in  the  case  of  Ahab,  God  is  presented  as 
taking  counsel  with  his  attendants  and  accepting  a  sug- 
gestion. There  is  a  heavenly  army,  spoken  of  as  di- 
vided into  legions.  There  are  archangels  set  over 
different  elements  and  over  different  peoples  ;  these 
deputy-gods  being,  in  so  far,  analogous  to  the  minor 
gods  of  the  Greek  Pantheon.  The  chief  difference  is 
that  their  powers  are  more  distinctly  deputed,  and  their 
subordination  greater.  Though  here,  too,  the  subordi- 
nation is  incomplete ;  we  read  of  wars  in  heaven  and 


318  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  rebellious  angels  cast  down  to  Tartarus.  That  this 
parallelism  continued  down  to  late  Christian  times  is 
abundantly  shown.  In  1407  Petit,  Professor  of  The- 
ology in  the  University  of  Paris,  represented  God  as  a 
feudal  sovereign,  heaven  as  a  feudal  kingdom,  and 
Lucifer  as  a  rebellious  vassal.  .  .  .  That  a  kindred  view 
was  held  by  our  Protestant  Milton  is  obvious.  "  *  "A 
kindred  view  "  is  stated  in  the  "  Collect  for  St.  Michael 
and  all  Angels'  Day  "  (Episcopal  Prayer-Book),  which 
says  God  has  "  ordained  and  constituted  the  services  of 
angels  and  men  in  a  wonderful  order." 

And  Dean  Goulburn,  commenting  upon  this  collect, 
says,  "  Scripture  gives  us  to  know  for  certain  that 
there  is  a  distinction  of  ranks  and  degrees  among  the 
angels,  a  constituted  order  among  them,  even  as  there 
is  in  human  society."  f  A  writer  in  the  "  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica "  (article  "  Eschatology  ")  gives,  perhaps, 
a  more  satisfactory  sketch  of  the  notions  that  have  pre- 
vailed concerning  the  future  state  than  Mr.  Spencer 
does.  "Eternity  of  punishment,"  he  says,  "is  often 
assumed  to  be  a  truth  of  natural  religion — an  intuitive 
human  belief.  It  would  be  truer  to  say  that  in  all 
races  the  first  vague  guesses  at  immortality  include  no 
thought  of  retribution  at  all."  He  then  cites  proofs  of 
his  assertion  from  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  writers. 

"  Homer  speaks  of  life  and  form  in  Hades,  but  says 
there  is  no  mind  there  at  all.  The  movement,  free- 
dom, joy  of  existence,  ended  for  the  Greek  at  death.  .  .  . 
The  primitive  Hebrew  conception  was  even  less  tolera- 
ble than  the  Greek.     Sheol — translated  in  the  Septua- 


*  "  Spencer's  "  Sociology,"  i,  pp.  190,  191. 
f  Goulburn  on  the  "  Collects,"  vol.  i,  p.  340. 


EVOLUTION:  HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  319 

gint  'Hades,'  and  by  our  Authorized  Version,  with 
curious  impartiality,  thirty-one  times  '  grave,'  and  thir- 
ty-one times  '  hell ' — was,  as  originally  conceived,  a  vast 
subterranean  tomb,  with  the  barred  and  bolted  gates  com- 
mon to  Hebrew  tombs,  in  which  the  ghosts  (Rephaim) 
did  not  even  flit  about,  but  lay  like  corpses  in  a  sepul- 
chre. No  thought  of  retribution  was  connected  with 
this  deep  and  gloomy  under-world.  It  was  the  com- 
mon receptacle  of  all.  The  distinctions  there  were  so- 
cial and  national,  not  moral. 

"This  primitive  idea  had,  by  the  time  of  Christ, 
developed  under  influences  of  a  very  different  kind. 
In  the  first  place,  the  horror  with  which  the  ancient 
Hebrew  had  contemplated  death,  because  in  Sheol  he 
would  be  cut  off  from  all  communication  with  the  cove- 
nant God,  was  dissipated  under  the  truer  religious  feel- 
ing struggling  into  life  in  the  later  Psalms  and  the 
book  of  Job.  At  first  it  had  been  believed  that  Jeho- 
vah's control  did  not  reach  to  the  under-world.  The 
King  of  Terrors  was  its  only  king.  They  who  had  been 
God's  sheep  when  alive,  in  Sheol  had  a  new  shepherd, 
Death  (Psalms,  ix,  14). 

"  But  truer  views  of  God's  nature  dissipated  this  hor- 
ror, and  pious  souls  who  despaired  of  redress  in  this  life 
began  to  look  even  in  Sheol  for  a  manifestation  of  di- 
vine justice  and  a  proof  of  divine  love.  At  length  was 
grasped  the  hope  of  a  deliverance  from  the  prison-house 
of  the  dead,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  crowned 
this  hope  and  gave  a  definite  shape  to  the  eschatology 
of  the  Jews. 

"  Analogies  have  been  found  between  the  Greek 
'Tartarus'  and  the  Hebrew  hell,  and  the  influence  of 
the  Western  mythology  traced  in  the  latter ;  but  in  order 


320  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  supply  symbolism  of  torment  of  surpassing  horror, 
no  foreign  influence  was  necessary.  Gehenna  (i.  e.,  the 
valley  of  Hinnom,  or  the  sons  of  Hinnoni,  southeast 
of  Jerusalem,  in  which  children  were  burned  to  the 
idol  Moloch  and  the  tires  were  kept  up  perpetually) 
and  its  ghastly  associations  were  ready  to  supply  images 
terrible  beyond  any  the  mind  of  heathen  poet  or  philos- 
opher had  conceived.  Already  known  as  the  perpetual 
abode  of  corruption  and  fire — the  place  where  lay  the 
corpses  of  those  who  have  trangressed  against  Jehovah, 
and  '  their  worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their  fire 
be  quenched ' — it  had  become  the  apt  symbol  of  utter 
moral  depravity  and  ruin.  But  it  was  the  unknown 
author  of  the  book  of  Enoch  *  who  first  saw  it  as  the 
accursed  of  the  accursed  forever,  who  first  placed  in 
the  dark  ravine  one  of  the  mouths  of  hell,  and  thus 
from  an  emblem  of  the  moral  ruin  attending  sin,  made 
it  the  actual  place  of  punishment  for  sinners.  Hence- 
forth, Gehenna  (hell)  becomes  known  as  a  part  of  Hades 
or  Sheol."  Paradise,  Elysium,  the  abode  of  the  blessed, 
was  on  the  other  side  of  Hades.f 

"  The  popular  views  of  a  future  state  regard  the  use 
Jesus  made  of  current  terms  as  a  sanction  of  their  lit- 
eral meaning. 

"  But  from  the  very  earliest  Christian  times  another 
interpretation  has  been  given  them.  It  has  been  under- 
stood that  Christ  treated  popular  religious  terms  as  only 
the  symbols  of  a  false  creed  can  be  effectually  treated. 

*  See  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica."  article  "  Apocalyptic  Litera- 
ture " — Enoch. 

f  See  parable  of  "  rich  man  and  Lazarus,"  Luke  xv,  and  com- 
pare Bishop  Harold  Brown's  "  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Arti- 
cles," Episcopal  Prayer-Book,  Article  III. 


EVOLUTION:  HEAVEN  AND  EELL.  321 

He  rescued  them  for  the  service  of  the  new  and  true. 
He  took  from  their  future  and  remote,  in  order  to  give 
them  a  present  and  immediate  force  and  aspect.  He 
employed  the  familiar  images  of  heaven  and  hell  to  im- 
press on  men's  consciences  the  supreme  bliss  of  right- 
eousness and  the  awful  misery  of  sin."  * 

This,  then,  seems  to  be  the  line  of  historical  develop- 
ment of  the  ideas  of  heaven  and  hell :  First,  men,  when 
they  got  the  idea  of  the  soul  as  distinct  from  the  body, 
thought  of  the  ghost-self  as  close  at  hand,  haunting  the 
old  home ;  but  gradually  "the  regions  said  to  be  haunt- 
ed by  the  souls  of  the  dead  become  wider.  Though 
they  revisit  their  old  homes,  yet  commonly  they  keep 
at  some  distance."  What  changes  the  idea  of  another 
world  close  at  hand,  to  the  idea  of  another  world  com- 
paratively remote  ?  The  answer  is  simple — migration. 
The  dreams  of  those  who  have  lately  migrated,  initiate 
beliefs  in  future  abodes  which  the  dead  reach  by  long 
journeys. 

"  Having  attachments  to  relatives  left  behind,  and 
being  subject  to  home-sickness  (sometimes  in  extreme 
degrees)  uncivilized  men,  driven  by  war  or  famine  to 
other  habitats,  must  often  dream  of  the  places  and  per- 
sons they  have  left.  Their  dreams,  narrated  and  ac- 
cepted in  the  original  way  as  actual  experiences,  make 
it  appear  that  during  sleep  they  have  been  to  their  old 
abodes.  First  one  then  another  dreams  thus,  rendering 
familiar  the  notion  of  visiting  the  fatherland  during 
sleep.  What  naturally  happens  at  death,  interpreted 
as  it  is  by  the  primitive  man "  as  merely  a  long-sus- 
pended animation  ?     "  The  other  self  is  long  absent — 

*  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Eschatology." 


322  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

where  lias  he  gone  ?  Obviously  to  the  place  which  he 
often  went  to,  and  from  which  at  other  times  he  re- 
turned. Now  he  has  not  returned.  He  longed  to  go 
back,  and  frequently  said  he  would  go  back.  Now  he 
has  done  as  he  said  he  would." 

The  notion  that  the  place  of  the  departed  was  under- 
ground is  thus  accounted  for  by  Mr.  Spencer :  "  Where 
caves  are  used  for  interments  they  become  the  supposed 
places  of  abode  for  the  dead ;  and  hence  develops  the 
notion  of  a  subterranean  world."  The  Greeks,  Romans, 
and  Jews  especially  believed  in  such  a  subterranean 
abode  of  departed  spirits,  in  which  were  placed,  on  the 
one  hand  the  happy  fields  of  Elysium  or  Paradise,  and 
on  the  other  the  gloomy  realms  of  Tartarus,  a  huge 
fortress,  surrounded  by  a  fiery  river  and  echoing  sounds 
of  torture.* 

The  conception  of  another  world  as  above  or  outside 
of  this  world,  Mr.  Spencer  ingeniously  urges,  arose 
from  the  fact  of  burial  on  hills  and  mountains.  "  The 
transition  from  a  mountain  abode  to  an  abode  in  the  sky, 
conceived  as  the  sky  was  by  primitive  man,  presents  no 
difficulties.  Burial  on  hills  is  practiced  by  many  peo- 
ples ;  and  there  are  places,  as  Borneo,  where,  along  with 
the  custom  of  depositing  chiefs'  remains  on  some  peak 
difficult  of  access,  there  goes  the  belief  that  the  spirits 
of  the  departed  inhabit  the  mountain-tops.  The  high- 
est mountain  in  sight  is  regarded  as  a  world  peopled  by 
the  departed ;  and  in  the  undeveloped  speech  of  sav- 
ages, living  on  a  peak  up  in  the  heavens  is  readily  con- 
founded with  living  in  the  heavens. "f 

*  Homer's  "  Odyssey,"  Book  XI ;  Virgil's  "  yEneid,"  Book  VI ;  cf. 
Bishop  Browne  on  "  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  " — Article  III. 
f  Spencer's  "  Sociology,"  i,  chap.  xv. 


EVOLUTION:   HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  323 

Since,  then,  we  can  thus  trace  the  historical  develop- 
ment of  the  notions  concerning  heaven  and  hell — can 
show  their  natural  genesis  from  primitive  man's  idea  of 
a  ghost-self,  another  self,  who  could  leave  and  dwell 
apart  from  his  body,  what  shall  we  think  of  the  huge 
mass  of  inferences  which  have  been  drawn  from  these 
facts  as  stated  in  the  Bible  \  Shall  we  set  the  whole 
aside  as  "  old  wives'  fables  " — baseless,  useless  human 
speculation  and  fancy  ? 

Surely  not.  Surely  "  there  is  a  soul  of  truth  in 
things  erroneous"  in  this  case  also.  Surely  the  uni- 
versal belief  in  the  existence  and  immortality  of  the 
soul,  together  with  the  belief  in  a  heaven  and  hell,  is  at 
least  a  presumption  in  favor  of  immortality  and  future 
retribution  !  It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  all 
men  have  been  deceived  on  this  subject — have  reasoned 
falsely — have  believed  a  lie  ;  and  therefore  it  is  our 
duty  to  search  for  the  kernel  of  truth  in  the  husk  of 
error. 

Assuming,  then,  the  existence  and  immortality  of 
the  soul,  which  will  be  more  fully  considered  in  another 
chapter,  and  confining  our  attention  strictly  to  the  sub- 
ject in  hand,  let  it  be  observed  : 

First,  that  we  must  give  up  the  crude  idea  of  heaven 
and  hell  as  places,  and  think  of  them  as  states,  or  spir- 
itual conditions.  "  Hell,"  says  Archdeacon  Farrar,  "  is 
a  temper,  not  a  place.  So  long  as  we  are  evil,  and 
impure,  and  unloving,  so  long  where  we  are  is  hell,  and 
where  hell  is  there  we  must  ever  be.  The  true  Gehenna 
is  not  a  burning  prison  but  a  polluted  heart — alienation 
from  God ;  hatred  of  truth  ;  hatred  of  purity  ;  a  hard, 
bitter,  railing,  loveless  spirit ;  mean,  base,  selfish,  sen- 
sual desires  ;  these  are  the  elements  of  hell — and  as  long 


32-i  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

as  any  man — be  lie  Pharisee  or  be  lie  a  publican — is 
given  to  these,  so  long  will  he  be  made  to  feel  with  the 
evil  spirit : 

'  Which  way  I  fly  is  hell,  myself  am  hell, 
And  in  the  lowest  deep  a  lower  deep, 
Still  gaping  to  devour  me,  opens  wide, 
To  which  the  hell  I  suffer  seems  a  heaven.' 

"  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  think  of  heaven  not 
as  of  '  some  meadow  of  asphodel '  beside  the  crystal 
waters,  or  golden  city  in  the  far-off  blue,  but  as  an  ex- 
tension, as  a  development,  as  an  undisturbed  continu- 
ance of  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  believing  ; 
whatever  else  it  be,  or  mean,  heaven  means  holiness  / 
heaven  means  principle  /  heaven  means  to  be  one  with 
God."  * 

To  the  same  effect  speaks  Dr.  Martensen.  "  If  it 
be  asked,"  he  writes,  "  where  those  who  are  fallen  asleep 
find  themselves  after  death,  nothing  certainly  is  more 
preposterous  than  the  idea  that  they  are  separated  from 
us  by  an  outward  infinity — that  they  find  themselves  in 
some  other  material  world — and  so  forth.  By  such 
notions  we  retain  the  departed  within  those  limits  and 
conditions  of  sense  beyond  which  they  certainly  are. 
No  barrier  of  sense  separates  them  from  us,  for  the 
sphere  in  which  they  find  themselves  differs,  toto  genere, 
from  this  material  sphere  of  time  and  space.  .  .  .  The 
tendency  or  direction  of  the  soul  in  death  is  not  out- 
ward but  inward,  a  going  into  itself,  a  going  back,  not 
a  going  forth " ;  and  instead,  of  the  modern  notion 
that  the  soul  wings  its  way  to  the  stars,  which  is 
sometimes  understood  literally,  the  idea  is  far  more  cor- 

*  Farrar's  "  Eternal  Hope,"  pp.  25  and  125. 


EVOLUTION:   HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  325 

rect  that  it  "  draws  itself  hack  to  the  innermost  and  mys- 
tical chambers  of  existence  which  underlie  the  outward. 

"  The  realm  of  the  dead  must  be  described,  in  relation 
to  this  world  of  sense,  as  an  inward  realm."  *  This 
gives  a  profoundly  philosophical  meaning  to  the  article 
of  the  Apostles'  Creed  which  speaks  of  Christ's  descent 
into  hell.  This  was  no  material  descent  into  the  bowels 
of  the  earth,  but  a  withdrawal  of  his  spirit  from  the 
outward  and  visible  sphere  of  matter  into  the  unseen 
spiritual  universe ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  his  ascen- 
sion into  heaven  must  not  be  thought  of  as  a  literal 
ascent  from  the  hills  of  Palestine  into  the  skies,  but 
rather  a  withdrawal  into  the  immediate  and  glorious 
presence  of  his  Father — the  Infinite  Spirit  "  in  whom 
we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being." 

The  whole  doctrine  of  evolution  as  it  is  expounded, 
not  simply  in  the  writings  of  modern  philosophers,  but 
as  it  appears  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinth- 
ians, teaches  this  view — that  the  future  life  is  to  be  a 
higher  and  more  spiritual  state  than  this  earthly  state  is. 

Secondly,  the  idea  of  an  endless  hell  must  be  given 
up  for  it  contradicts  both  the  statements  of  Scripture 
and  the  facts  of  evolution-philosophy.  Such  eminent 
theologians  as  Archdeacon  Farrar,  Canon  Kow,f  Rev. 
John  Page  Hopps,;j:  and  others  have  conclusively  shown 
that  neither  the  special  nor  general  teachings  of  Script- 
ure nor  the  dictates  of  conscience  and  reason  prove  the 
popular  doctrine  of  hell.     The  main  word  in  this  great 

*  Martensen,  "  Christian  Dogmatics,"  pp.  459,  460 ;  cf.  Stewart 
and  Tait's  "  Unseen  Universe,"  passim. 

f  Row's  "  Future  Retribution." 

X  "  Future  Probation ;  a  Symposium,"  by  Rev.  J.  P.  Hopps,  Dr. 
Leathes,  etc.  (Whittaker). 


326  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

discussion  is  the  word  "eternal"  (Greek  aLoovios  = 
aionios  /  Hebrew  o>"S>  olam),  and  this  has  been  shown 
to  have  at  least ybw  meanings  in  Scripture  : 

First,  it  unquestionably  means  "  everlasting,"  in 
some  cases,  as  when  it  is  applied  to  God  (Deuteronomy, 
xxxiii,  27).     But — 

Secondly,  it  is  no  less  certain  that  it  means  limited 
duration,  as,  for  instance,  when  it  is  applied  to  a  land- 
mark, "  Remove  not  the  ancient  landmark  "  (Proverbs, 
xxii,  28).  The  original  of  the  word  "  ancient "  is  (He- 
brew) "  olam,"  which  certainly  must  have  the  meaning 
of  limited  duration  in  this  case,  for  the  landmark  has 
long  since  passed  away,  as  all  landmarks  must  in  course 
of  time.     Then — 

Thirdly,  the  word  "  eternal"  means  indefinite  dura- 
tion, as  when  it  is  applied  to  the  hills  (Genesis,  xlix, 
26);  and— 

Finally,  in  the  "  Gospel  according  to  John "  this 
word  loses  the  element  of  duration  altogether  and  ex- 
presses a  spiritual  condition.  "  Eternal  life "  here 
means  happiness  in  the  unseen  world,  eternal  punish- 
ment or  death  means  misery  in  the  spirit-world.*  The 
only  remaining  question,  then,  is  this  ;  when  the  word 
"  eternal "  {plain  or  aionios)  is  applied  in  Scripture  to 
the  state  of  the  wicked  after  death,  does  it  necessarily 
mean  endless  duration  ?  In  answer  the  advocates  of 
everlasting  punishment  cite  Matthew,  xxv,  46,  in  which 
it  is  said  :  "  These  (the  wicked)  shall  go  away  into  ever- 
lasting (i.  e.,  aionian)  punishment ;  but  the  righteous 
into  eternal  (aionian)  life,  "  where,  it  will  be  observed, 

*  Maurice's  "Theological  Essays,"  pp.  377-416,  Farrar's  "Eter- 
nal Hope,"  excursus  iii,  etc.,  "  Mercy  and  Judgment,"  pp.  378-405. 


EVOLUTION:   HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  327 

the  same  word  is  used  to  describe  the  condition  of  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  after  death.  Hence,  from  the 
days  of  St.  Augustine  (fourth  century)  to  the  present 
it  has  been  urged  that  "  if  the  misery  of  the  wicked  in 
hell  be  temporary,  so  must  the  blessedness  of  the  right- 
eous in  heaven  be  temporary  " — to  which  sophistry  the 
following  crashing  reply  has  been  given :  We  find  no 
intimation  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  happiness  of 
the  righteous  will  ever  end ;  on  the  contrary,  it  isover 
and  over  again  said  to  be  endless.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  have  not  only  special  passages  of  Scripture  which 
seem  to  teach  clearly  that  the  wicked  will  have  an  op- 
portunity of  salvation  in  the  spiritual  world,  but  the 
general  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  would  lead  us 
to  believe  in  the  ultimate  total  extinction  of  all  evil  and 
suffering. 

The  special  passages  referred  to  are,  of  course,  the 
following :  In  Matthew,  v,  26,  it  is  distinctly  said  that 
one  may  pay  the  last  farthing  and  come  out  of  the 
prison  of  punishment.  In  Matthew,  xii,  31,  32,  it  is 
said  that  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not 
be  forgiven,  "  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world 
to  come."  And  if  this  passage  be  applied,  as  it  gen- 
erally is,  to  the  state  of  the  wicked  after  death,  it  cer- 
tainly implies  that  some  sins  will  be  forgiven  in  the 
world  to  come,  but  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  not  one  of  these.  The  most  conclusive  special  pas- 
sage, however,  in  favor  of  a  possible  salvation  after  death 
is  I  Peter,  iii,  18-20,  and  iv,  6.  Here  it  is  distinctly 
said  that  Christ,  after  he  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh, 
during  the  three  days  between  his  crucifixion  and  resur- 
rection, went  and  preached  the  gospel  to  the  dead  in 
prison — i.  e.,  Hades,  the  unseen  world — that  they  might 


328  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

be  judged  according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but  live  accord- 
ing to  God  in  the  spirit.  Of  course,  various  theological 
subterfuges  have  been  invented  to  explain  away  the  ob- 
vious meaning  of  this  passage.  But  such  attempts  are 
unworthy  of  their  source,  and  any  unbiased  mind  must 
see  in  this  passage  a  clear  expression  of  belief  in  salva- 
tion after  death.  However,  the  opponents  of  endless 
punishment  not  only  urge  special  passages  of  Scripture 
against  the  traditional  and  popular  doctrine  of  future 
punishment ;  they  argue  much  more  strongly  that  the 
New  Testament  clearly  teaches  that  all  evil  and  suffer- 
ing are  to  be  ultimately  extinguished  from  God's  uni- 
verse.  Thus  we  read  of  "  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth 
wherein  dwelleth  righteousness"  (II  Peter,  iii,  13). 
We  are  told  that  the  day  is  coming  when  "  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  every  knee  shall  bow,  of  things  in  heaven  and 
things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  and  every 
tongue  shall  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father  "  (Philippians,  ii,  10,  11).  We 
read  of  a  "  restoration  of  all  things  "  to  a  state  of  per- 
fect purity  (Acts,  ii,  21),  and,  more  conclusively,  we  are 
told  that  a  day  is  coming  when  "  all  things  shall  be  sub- 
dued unto  God,  and  he  shall  be  all  in  alV  (I  Corinthians, 
xv,  28).  It  is  rather  hard  to  believe  that  God  will  be 
"  all  in  all "  if  evil  is  to  be  endless.* 

For  a  moment  I  have  taken  the  Traditionalist  on  his 
own  ground — "  the  Bible  and  the  Bible  only  " — and 
have  very  briefly  indicated  the  answers  which  the  New 
Theology  gives  to  his  time-worn,  threadbare  arguments, 


*  See,  for  further  passages  of  Scripture  and  crushing  arguments, 
Farrar's  "  Eternal  Hope,"  pp.  219-225,  and  the  other  able  works  re- 
ferred to. 


EVOLUTION:  HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  329 

or  rather  crude  inferences ;  but,  of  course,  the  evolu- 
tionist must  go  back  of  the  letter  of  any  book  to  the 
spirit  of  the  man  who  wrote  it  and  ask,  Why  should 
we  accept  his  utterances  as  authoritative  and  infallible 
instead  of  the  opinions  of  others  ?  Of  course,  if  he  be 
infallibly  inspired  of  God,  then  his  utterances  are  law 
to  us,  but  we  have  seen  that  the  Bible  writers,  although 
the  greatest  religious  geniuses  whom  God  ever  sent 
upon  earth,  have  by  no  means  left  us  absolutely  infalli- 
ble productions.  It  is  simply  amazing  that  intelligent 
theologians,  who  know  how  uncertain  are  the  author- 
ship and  the  authenticity  of  the  "  Gospels,"  should  yet 
insist  that  their  literal  meaning  is  binding  upon  us ; 
that  in  them  we  have  a  perfect  transcript  of  Divine 
Wisdom.  It  is  plain  to  all  unprejudiced  minds  that 
they,  a  id  indeed  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
contain  much,  especially  on  the  subject  in  hand,  that  is 
directly  traceable,  not  to  Divine  Wisdom,  not  to  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  but  to  the  Jewish  schools  of  theology,  and 
hence  we  unhesitatingly  set  it  aside — unless,  indeed,  it 
be  confirmed  by  other  and  more  rational  teachings. 

In  short,  it  must  be  evident  to  all  that,  notwith- 
standing the  Traditionalist's  claim  that  Reason  has  no 
voice  on  this  question  of  a  future  state  ;  that  the  Bible 
is  the  only  authority  which  can  be  recognized — we  are 
compelled  to  appeal  to  Reason  at  every  point  to  say 
whether  such  things  are  true  or  false.  -Canon  Row,  in  his 
powerful  work  on  "  Future  Retribution  "  (chapter  ii), 
has  annihilated  the  popular  fallacies  about  our  Reason 
being  an  untrustworthy  witness  on  the  subject  under 
consideration.  He  shows  that  the  legitimate  conclusion 
of  the  popular  teaching  is  blank  Agnosticism. 

It  is  commonly  urged  that  we  have  no  right  to  infer 


330  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

from  our  conception  of  Justice,  Love,  and  Mercy  any- 
thing as  to  God's  dealings  with  the  wicked,  because  our 
ideas  on  these  subjects  may  be  false ;  we  can  form  no 
true  notion  of  Infinite  Justice,  Love,  and  Mercy ;  they 
may  be  different  attributes  from  what  we  think  them 
to  be.  In  other  words,  it  is  meant  that  injustice  on 
earth  may  be  justice  in  heaven ;  love  on  earth  may  be 
hatred  in  heaven  ;  mercy  in  this  world  may  be  cruelty 
in  the  next ;  and,  vice  versa,  injustice,  hatred,  and  cruel- 
ty, as  we  understand  them,  may  be  the  very  essence  of 
justice,  love,  and  mercy  in  the  spiritual  world ! 

Could  any  theory  be  more  subversive  of  all  re- 
ligion and  philosophy  than  this  ?  Is  it  not  the  most 
dangerous  sort  of  Agnosticism  ?  I  hold,  then,  with 
Canon  Row  and  others,  that  what  is  unjust,  unmerci- 
ful, and  unloving  in  our  estimation,  is  infinitely  more 
so  in  GooVs  estimation,  and  from  this  we  may  argue 
forcibly  against  the  popular  dogma  of  future  punish- 
ment. First,  given  a  God  of  infinite  power,  wisdom, 
and  love,  such  as  Jesus  revealed,  and  given  infinite 
time  and  means  for  the  accomplishment  of  His  pur- 
poses, it  is  simply  absurd  to  say  that  He  can  not  ac- 
complish those  purposes.  What  those  purposes  are  we 
may  not  know  absolutely,  but  we  may  rationally  urge 
that  a  God  of  Love  must  desire  the  happiness  of  all 
His  creatures  ;  and,  if  so,  He  will  bring  it  about,  if  not 
in  one  way  then  in  another.  In  short,  the  endless  ex- 
istence of  evil  in  the  universe  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  infinite  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness  of  God ; 
although  its  temporary  existence  may  serve  a  good  pur- 
pose. 

Secondly,  say  what  we  may,  we  can  not  believe  that 
a  God  of  Love  will  either  damn  one  of  His  children,  or 


EVOLUTION:  HEAVEN  AND  EELL.  331 

allow  him  to  damn  himself,  everlastingly,  for  any  sin 
however  heinous.  God  can  not  be  more  cruel  than 
man,  and  no  earthly  father  would  condemn  his  child, 
or,  if  he  could  help  it,  allow  his  child  to  be  condemned, 
to  endless  punishment. 

Thirdly,  the  whole  law  of  evolution,  as  already 
stated,  is  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  endless  evil  and 
suffering.  It  teaches  that  the  whole  creation  is  moving 
forward  and  upward  to  a  state  of  perfection  in  every 
respect. 

It,  no  less  than  the  Seer  on  Patmos,  beholds  afar  off 
"the  New  Jerusalem  descending  out  of  heaven  from 
God,  having  the  glory  of  God  ;  and  her  light  like  unto 
a  stone  most  precious,  even  unto  a  jasper  stone ;  and 
the  gates  of  pearl,  and  the  foundations  of  precious 
stones,  and  the  pure  river  of  the  water  of  life  clear  as 
crystal,  and  the  Tree  of  Life  with  its  leaves  for  the 
healing  of  the  nations  "  (Rev.,  xxi,  xxii). 

When  that  beatific  vision  shall  be  realized,  "they 
shall  hunger  no  more ;  neither  shall  the  sun  light  on 
them,  nor  any  heat.  For  the  Lamb  that  is  in  the  midst 
of  the  throne  shall  feed  them,  and  shall  lead  them  unto 
living  fountains  of  waters ;  and  God  shall  wipe  away 
all  tears  from  their  eyes  "  (Rev.,  vii,  16,  17).  "  And 
there  shall  be  no  more  curse,  but  the  throne  of  God 
and  of  the  Lamb  shall  be  in  it ;  and  his  servants  shall 
serve  Him  ;  and  they  shall  see  His  face  ;  and  His  name 
shall  be  in  their  foreheads  "  (Rev.,  xxii,  3,  4).  Symbols 
these — only  symbols,  but  as  Dr.  Farrar  truly  says  :  "  If 
we  need  any  symbols  to  help  us,  they  are  sjmibols  of 
transparent  meaning ;  green  meadows,  where  men  may 
breathe  God's  fresh  air,  and  see  His  golden  light; 
glorified  cities,  with  none  of  the  filth  and  repulsiveness 

16 


332  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  these,  but  where  no  foul  step  intrudes  ;  white  robes, 
pure  emblems  of  stainless  innocence ;  the  crown,  and 
the  palm-branch,  and  the  throne  of  supreme  self-mastery 
over  our  spiritual  enemies  ;  and  the  golden  harp  and  the 
endless  song,  which  do  but  speak  of  abounding  happi- 
ness, in  that  form  of  it  which  is  of  all  others  the  most 
innocent,  the  most  thrilling,  the  most  intense." 

Now,  of  course,  there  are  many,  myriads  indeed, 
who  will  raise  the  familiar  war-cry  of  Traditionalism : 
"  This  is  a  dangerous  doctrine ;  this  teaching  will  make 
men  careless  and  more  indifferent  to  religion  than  they 
are  now."  To  which  it  may  be  replied  :  First,  it  is  not 
a  question  of'  consequences  but  a  question  of  truth.  If 
the  foregoing  doctrine  is  true,  we  must  preach  it,  re- 
gardless of  consequences. 

Secondly,  the  dogma  of  an  endless  hell  is  by  no 
means  so  potent  a  factor  in  the  conversion  of  the  world 
as  many  fancy.  For  hundreds  and  thousands  of  years 
it  has  been  preached  most  vigorously ;  and  yet,  accord- 
ing to  its  own  showing,  the  vast  majority  of  men, 
even  in  Christian  lands,  are  forever  lost.  It  is  about 
time  that  we  try  the  Gospel  of  Love  in  place  of  the 
gospel  of  fire-and-brimstone.  But,  alas !  not  only  has 
preaching  endless  punishment  failed  to  convert  the  ma- 
jority of  those  who  have  listened  to  it;  it  has  made 
infidels  by  the  score  and  by  the  thousand.  An  advo- 
cate of  this  cruel  and  irrational  dogma  has  no  show 
whatever  in  an  argument  with  a  profound  and  brilliant 
skeptic. 

Thirdly,  if  preaching  the  Gospel  of  Love  make 
men  indifferent ;  if  they  are  so  beastly  as  to  put  off 
coming  to  God  till  after  death  just  because  He  is  a 
merciful  God,  then  not  only  will  they  he  punished  most 


EVOLUTION:  HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  333 

severely  for  this  negligence,  but,  according  to  our  view, 
oar  depleted  ranks  may  be  filled  up  in  the  unseen 
sphere  from  those  unnumbered  millions  whom  tradi- 
tional "  orthodoxy,"  or  rather  heterodoxy,  consigns  to  an 
endless  hell.  We  are  certain  that  these  died  in  a  state 
of  sin  and  are  suffering  the  consequences,  and  we  might 
prefer  a  doctrine  which  holds  out  hope  to  that  vast 
unknown  multitude  to  a  dogma  which  condemns  them, 
under  the  delusion  that  its  proclamation  is  necessary 
to  the  salvation  of  unborn  generations.  I  say  "  delu- 
sion," for,  after  all,  how  does  the  Traditionalist  know 
so  much  about  the  "  consequences "  of  preaching  the 
"  Larger  Hope  "  ?  By  what  power  of  foresight  has  he 
been  able  to  peer  down  the  vistas  of  the  future  and  be- 
hold unborn  myriads  marching  to  hell  because  of  the 
proclamation  of  the  Gospel  of  Love?  Judging  from 
the  past,  we  should  infer  that  the  very  opposite  would 
be  the  result. 

Finally,  let  it  be  distinctly  understood  that,  while 
we  disbelieve  in  the  eternity  of  evil — in  endless  punish- 
ment— we  by  no  means  disbelieve  in  future  punish- 
ment. Nay,  "  Whatsoever  a  man  soweth  that  shall  he 
also  reap,"  and  more — "  sow  the  wind,  reap  the  whirl- 
wind." 

"Sow  an  act,  reap  a  habit;  sow  a  habit,  reap  a 
character;  sow  a  character,  reap  a  destiny."  It  is  this 
awful  fact — the  hardening  effect  of  sin — that  led  Arch- 
deacon Farrar  to  believe  in  the  possibility  of  endless 
punishment ;  but  it  is  apparent  from  the  foregoing  that 
the  author,  among  others,  believes  even  a  character  so 
stereotyped  in  sin  may  ultimately  be  recovered  by  Infi- 
nite Power,  Wisdom,  and  Love.  But  while  believing 
this,  I  no  less  firmly  assert  the  terrible  depth  of  sin  and 


334  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

of  punishment  to  which  a  human  soul  may  sink,  and 
God  only  knows  how  long  it  may  take  Infinite  Power, 
Love,  and  Wisdo?n  itself  to  rescue  such  a  soul.  Is 
there  any  sane  man  in  existence  who  wishes  to  take 
such  a  risk?  We  do  not  believe  it;  but  if  there  be 
such  a  fool,  such  a  wretch  on  God's  green  earth,  we  say 
to  him  in  the  words  of  the  olden  preachers :  "  Walk  in 
the  ways  of  thine  heart  and  in  the  sight  of  thine  eyes ; 
but  know  thou  that  for  all  these  things  God  will  bring 
thee  into  judgment "  (Ecclesiastics,  xi,  9).  "  Woe  unto 
them  that  call  evil  good  and  good  evil ;  that  put  dark- 
ness for  light  and  light  for  darkness  ;  that  put  bit- 
ter for  sweet  and  sweet  for  bitter.  Therefore,  as  the 
fire  devoureth  the  stubble  and  the  flame  consumeth  the 
chaff,  so  their  root  shall  be  as  rottenness,  and  their  blos- 
som shall  go  up  as  dust :  because  they  have  cast  away 
the  law  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  and  despised  the  word  of 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel "  (Isaiah,  v,  21). 

"  There  is  a  dreadful  coercion,"  says  Dr.  Farrar,  "in 
our  iniquities,  an  inevitable  congmity  between  the  deed 
and  its  consequences ;  an  awful  germ  of  identity  in  the 
seed  and  in  the  fruit.  We  recognize  the  sown  wind  in 
the  harvest  whirlwind.  We  feel  that  it  is  we  who  have 
winged  the  very  arrows  that  eat  into  our  heart  like 
fire.  It  needs  no  gathered  lightning,  no  miraculous 
message  to  avenge  in  us  God's  violated  laws.  They 
avenge  themselves.  You  may  laugh  at  Bibles,  sneer  at 
clergymen,  keep  away  from  churches,  and  yet  your  sin 
coming  after  you  with  leaden  footstep,  and  gathering 
form  and  towering  over  you,  smites  you  at  last  with  the 
iron  hand  of  its  own  revenge. 

"  You  may  be  saved,  indeed,  at  last,  if  God  will ; 
saved  not  from  Him  and  His  wrath,  but  from  yourself 


EVOLUTION:  HEAVEN  AND  HELL.  335 

and  your  self-destruction  ;  but  even  then  there  may  be  a 
sense  in  which  it  may  be  awfully  true  that  our  millen- 
niums depend  upon  our  moments  ;  the  path  of  repentance 
may  never  be  closed  to  us ;  but  oh,  how  hard  may  that 
path  of  repentance  be — over  what  bleeding  flints ; 
through  what  a  scorch  of  fiery  swords ;  through  what 
deep  shame,  what  dread  corruption,  what  pain  of  body, 
what  misery  of  remorse,  what  agony  of  soul !  Oh,  were 
it  not  better  to  cut  off  the  right  hand  and  pluck  out  the 
right  eye,  than  go  of  our  own  choice  into  the  Gehenna 
of  aionian  fire,  here  and  hereafter  ! " 

That  fire  "  is  the  glare  of  illumination  which  Con- 
science flings  over  the  soul  after  a  deed  of  darkness.  It 
is  the  revulsion  of  feeling  on  which  we  did  not  calculate 
when  we  have  done  with  the  sin,  but  the  sin  has  not 
done  with  us.  It  is  the  little  grain  of  conscience  within 
the  very  worst  of  us  which  makes  forbidden  pleasures 
sour.  It  is  the  fact  that  none  of  us  can  be  quite 
wicked  enough  to  enjoy  wickedness.  It  is  the  aching 
crave  after  the  brief  intoxication.  It  is  the  Dead 
Sea  apple  shriveling  into  hideousness  the  moment  it 
has  been  tasted.  It  is  the  horror  of  the  murderer 
when  his  passion  of  vengeance  is  spent,  and  the  cold 
gray  dawn  reveals  the  face  of  his  murdered  victim." 
It  is  the  vision  of  the  young  man  suffering  from 
delirium  tremens  /  "  the  blood-red  suffusion  before 
the  eyes  quenched  suddenly  in  darknesss — the  myriads 
of  burning,  whirling  rings  of  concentric  fire — mill- 
ions of  foul  insects  seeming  to  weave  their  damp, 
soft,  webs  about  the  face,  the  bloated,  hideous,  ever- 
changing  faces  of  their  visions — the  eyes  that  glare  from 
wall  to  roof — the  feeling  as  if  a  man  were  falling,  fall- 
ing, falling,  falling,  endlessly  into  a  fathomless  abyss ! " 


336  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

This  is  hell,  and  such  a  hell  begins  below  and  ex- 
tends into  the  dark  and  hidden  depths  of  eternity ;  and 
if  any  one  be  foolhardy  enough  to  cast  himself  head- 
long into  this  lake  of  fire  because  God's  mercy  endureth 
forever,  he  must  suffer  the  consequences,  knowing  all 
the  while  that  he  was  fully  warned  of  his  fate.* 

*  See  Archdeacon  Farrar's  most  eloquent  and  powerful  sermon 
on  "  The  Consequences  of  Sin,"  "  Eternal  Hope,"  sermon  v. 


CHAPTER  TIL 

EVOLUTION  AND  THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL. 


Mr.  Maurice  begins  the  third  of  his  "  Theological 
Essays "  with  these  profound  words  :  "  I  suppose  if 
any  of  us  met  with  a  treatise  which  professed  to  dis- 
cuss the  origin  of  evil,  our  first  and  most  natural  im- 
pulse would  be  to  throw  it  aside.  .  .  .  The  man  must 
have  great  leisure,"  we  should  say  "  or  be  very  youth- 
ful who  could  occupy  himself  with  such  a  subject  as 
this.  After  six  thousand  years  of  experience  of  evil, 
and  almost  as  many  of  hopeless  controversy  about  its 
source,  we  may  as  well  reckon  that  among  the  riddles 
which  men  are  not  to  solve,  and  pass  to  something  else. 

"  The  resolution  may  be  a  wise  one  as  far  as  it  re- 
lates to  discussions,  philosophical  or  theological,  on  this 
topic.  Possibly  the  chief  good  they  have  done  is,  that 
they  have  shown  how  little  they  can  do  ;  that  they 
have  proved  how  inadequate  school  logic  is  for  the 
necessities  of  human  life.  But  if  we  suppose  when  we 
closed  the  book,  that  we  had  done  with  the  question  it 
raised  and  which  it  tried  to  settle  ;  if  we  thought  that 
it  would  not  meet  us  again  in  the  law  court  and  the  mar- 
ket-place, and  mix  itself  most  inconveniently  in  all  the 
common  business  of  the  world,  a  little  experience  will 
have  shown  us  that  we  are  mistaken.     AVe  must  con- 


338  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

sider  the  origin  of  evil,  whether  we  like  it  or  not.  We 
are  debating  it  with  ourselves  ;  we  are  conversing  about 
it  with  others ;  we  are  acting  on  some  conclusions  we 
have  formed  about  it  every  day  of  our  lives." 

Now,  this  is  my  reason  and  apology  for  undertaking 
to  discuss  this  sorely  vexed  and  most  difficult  problem 
in  this  work.  It  is  not  purely  a  theoretical  question  ; 
it  is  an  intensely  practical  question  ;  it  forms,  if  not  the 
sine  qua  non  of  the  Church,  at  least  one  of  its  chief  cor- 
ner-stones, and  so  we  must  consider  the  fact  of  evil,  and 
this  consideration  will  lead  us  directly  to  a  discussion  of 
its  origin.  Let  me  add  that  on  this,  as  on  most  of  the  sub- 
jects treated  in  this  book,  I  have  no  original  contribution 
to  make.  My  aim  is  simply  to  bring  together  and  con- 
dense and  popularize,  if  possible,  what  I  consider  the  best 
thoughts  that  have  been  expressed  on  the  subjects  in 
hand.  Adhering  to  this  plan,  I  shall  freely  quote  from 
the  most  modern  and,  in  my  opinion,  the  ablest  writers 
on  the  problem  of  evil,  merely  throwing  in  explanatory 
notes  which  may  seem  necessary. 

The  question  at  issue  naturally  divides  itself  into 
two  parts,  viz.,  the  origin  oi  physical  evil  and  the  origin 
of  sin  /  and  we  must  keep  them  separate.  For  a  long 
time  it  was  supposed  that  the  earth  was  cursed  on  ac- 
count of  Adam's  sin  (Genesis,  iii,  17,18),  that  death  it- 
self is  the  wages  of  sin  (Romans,  vi,  23),  and  by  this  was 
understood  not  spiritual  but  physical  death.*  But  geo- 
logical and  biological  science  has  clearly  disproved  this 
notion  by  showing,  first,  that  death,  among  plants  and  the 
lower  animals,  wrought  its  dreadful  work  on  this  planet 
millions  of  ages  before  man  appeared  ;  and,  secondly, 

*  Hodge's  "  Theology,"  ii,  p.  92. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.    339 

that  whatever  man  may  be  spiritually — however  widely 
separated  from  the  lower  animals  in  soul — he  at  least 
belongs  physically  to  the  animal  kingdom.  "  From  the 
natural  or  animal  point  of  view,"  says  Prof.  Le  Conte, 
"  man  belongs  to  the  animal  kingdom.  In  that  king- 
dom he  has  no  department  of  his  own  ;  he  belongs  to 
the  department  of  Vertebrata,  along  with  birds,  reptiles, 
amphibians,  and  fishes.  In  that  department  he  has  no 
privileged  class  of  his  own  ;  he  belongs  to  the  class 
Mammalia,  along  with  all  four-footed  beasts.  In  that 
class  he  has  no  titled  order  of  his  own  ;  he  belongs  to 
the  order  of  Primates,  along  with  apes,  baboons,  le- 
murs, etc.  Even  the  privacy  of  a  family  of  his  own,  the 
IIominida3,  is  grudgingly  accorded  to  him  by  some."  * 
Dr.  Hodge  admits  the  truth  of  this.f  Since,  then,  the 
lower  animals  which  existed  before  man  was  originated 
died,  and  since  he,  at  least  as  regards  his  body,  "  belongs 
to  the  animal  kingdom,"  the  conclusion  is  inevitable 
that  bodily  death  is  not  the  wages  of  sin,  except,  of 
course,  in  those  cases  where  a  man  kills  himself  by  drink 
or  some  other  sinful  means.  But  not  only  does  science 
prove  that  death  is  not  the  wages  of  sin  ;  it  further 
proves  that  the  supposed  "curse"  on  the  ground  in 
Genesis,  hi,  17, 18,  is  groundless. 

The  earth  brought  forth  "  thorns  and  thistles  "  long 
before  the  advent  of  man  :  essentially  the  same  physi- 
cal phenomena  everywhere  existed  in  all  lower  crea- 
tion in  pre-human  times  that  exist  nowadays.  Hence 
the  cause  of  all  evil  and  suffering  is  not  sin.  What, 
then,  is  the  cause  of  physical  evil  ?      The  answer  is — 

*  "  Princeton  Review,"  November,  1878. 
f  "  What  is  Darwinism  ?  "  p.  5. 


340  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

God.  And  if  any  one  be  shocked  by  this  bald  way  of 
stating  the  truth,  his  pain  will  vanish  when  he  considers 
the  subject  more  profoundly.  Even  supposing  that  hu- 
man sin — i.  e.,  the  act  of  man,  or  of  some  other  personal 
wicked  spirit  (the  devil) — were  the  cause  of  evil,  the 
question  at  once  arises,  What  is  the  cause  of  that  cause 
— who  created  man  or  the  devil  ? — for  surely  neither  is 
self-originated  or  self-existent;  and  the  answer  to  this 
question  must  be — God.  It  is,  therefore,  apparent  that, 
by  calling  in  some  finite  cause  to  account  for  the  exist- 
ence of  evil,  we  merely  stop  at  a  half-way  house — we 
do  not  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  Science,  recogniz- 
ing the  truth  of  all  this,  posits  One  Supreme  Cause  of 
all  things,  and  holds  that  "  not  a  sparrow  falleth"  without 
Divine  permission ;  that  everything  happens  according 
to  Divine  Law.  It  thus  boldly  declares  that  God  is  the 
author  of  what  we  call  evil,  and  then  seeks  to  explain 
the  why  and  the  wherefore  of  His  permitting  the  exist- 
ence of  what  we  call  evil.  Observe,  I  say,  "  what  we 
call  evil,"  because  evolution  holds  that  evil  is  merely 
good  in  disguise — a  necessary  condition  of  higher  devel- 
opment— of  greater  happiness.  And  this  idea  has  been 
so  clearly  expounded  by  Prof.  Le  Conte,  that  I  borrow 
his  exposition  in  full. 

"  The  necessary  condition  of  evolution  of  the  organic 
kingdom,"  he  says,  "  is  a  smuggle  for  life — a  conflict  on 
every  side,  with  a  seemingly  inimical  environment,  and 
a  survival  of  only  the  strongest,  the  swiftest,  or  the  most 
cunning — in  a  word,  the  fittest.  Now,  suppose  the 
course  of  organic  evolution  finished  in  the  introduction 
of  man,  and  from  this  vantage-ground  we  look  back 
over  the  course  and  consider  its  results.  Shall  we  call 
that  evil  which  was  the  necessary  condition  of  the  pro- 


EVOLUTION"  AND   THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.    341 

gressive  elevation  which  culminated  so  gloriously? 
Evil  doubtless,  it  seemed  to  the  individual  struggling 
animal,  but  is  this  worthy  to  be  weighed  in  comparison 
with  the  evolution  of  the  whole  organic  kingdom  until 
it  culminated  in  man  ?  Is  it  not  rather  a  good  in  dis- 
guise ? 

"  But  organic  evolution  completed  in  man  was  imme- 
diately transferred  to  a  higher  plane,  and  continued  as 
social  evolution ;  material  evolution  is  transformed  into 
psychical  evolution  ;  unconscious  evolution,  according 
to  necessary  law,  to  conscious  voluntary  progress  toward 
a  recognized  goal,  and.  according  to  &  freer  law.  But 
in  this  transformation  the  fundamental  conditions  of 
evolution  do  not  change.  Man  is  also  surrounded  on 
every  side  with  what  at  first  seems  to  him  an  evil  en- 
vironment, against  which  he  must  struggle  or  perish — 
heat  and  cold,  tempest  and  flood,  volcanoes  and  earth- 
quakes, savage  beasts  and  still  more  savage  men.  What 
is  the  remedy,  the  only  conceivable  remedy  ?  Knowl- 
edge of  the  laws  of  Nature,  and  thereby  acquisition  of 
power  over  Nature.  But  increasing  knowledge  and 
power  are  equivalent  to  progressive  elevation  in  the 
scale  of  psychical  being.  This  conflict  with  what  seems 
an  evil  environment  is,  therefore,  the  necessary  condi- 
tion of  such  elevation.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
without  this  condition,  except  for  this  necessity  for 
struggle,  man  could  never  have  emerged  out  of  animal- 
ity  into  humanity,  or,  having  thus  emerged,  would 
never  have  risen  above  the  lowest  possible  stage.  Now 
suppose,  again,  this  ideal  to  have  been  attained — sup- 
pose knowledge  of  physical  laws  and  power  over  physi- 
cal forces  to  be  complete — suppose  physical  Nature  com- 
pletely subdued,  put  beneath  our  feet,  and  subject  to 


342  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

our  will,  and,  from  the  high  intellectual  position  thus  at- 
tained, we  look  back  over  the  whole  ground  and  con- 
sider the  result.  Shall  that  be  called  evil  which  was 
obviously  the  necessary  condition  for  attaining  our  then 
elevated  position  ?  Evil  it  doubtless  seemed  to  the  in- 
dividual who  fell,  and  still  seems  to  us  who  now  suffer, 
by  the  way  in  the  conflict ;  but  is  physical  discomfort 
or  even  physical  death  of  the  individual  to  be  weighed 
in  comparison  with  the  psychical  elevation  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  especially  of  the  race  ? 

"  Evidently,  then,  physical  evil,  even  in  the  case  of 
man,  is  only  seeming  evil,  but  real  good,  But  there  is 
a  more  dreadful  form  of  evil  than  that  which  results 
from  external  physical  nature — an  evil  far  more  subtle 
and  difficult  to  understand  and  conquer.  I  mean  inter- 
nal organic  evil — disease  in  its  diversified  forms  and 
with  its  attendant  weakness  and  suffering,  inscrutable 
often  in  its  causes,  insidious  in  its  approaches,  conta- 
gious, infectious,  spreading  from  house  to  house,  carry- 
ing suffering  and  death  in  its  course,  and  leaving  sor- 
row and  desolation  behind.  Is  there  any  remedy  which 
can  transmute  this  evil  into  good  ?  There  is.  It  is 
again  knowledge — knowledge  of  the  laws,  and  power 
over  the  forces,  of  organic  nature.  Is  it  not  evident 
that  complete  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  health  and  the 
causes  of  disease  would  put  this  evil  also  under  our 
feet? 

"  Is  it  not  evident  that  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the 
laws  of  health,  and  a  perfect  living  according  to  these 
laws,  would  so  entirely  subdue  this  evil  that  men  would 
no  longer  die  except  by  natural  decay  or  by  accident  ?  * 

*  See  Spencer's  enunciation  of  the  conditions  of  physical  immor- 


EVOLUTION  AATD   TEE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.   343 

Is  it  not  evident,  also,  that  the  race  will  not  attain  this 
knowledge  unless  it  is  forced  upon  us  by  the  necessity 
of  avoiding  the  dread  evil  of  disease?  Now  suppose, 
again,  this  ideal  attained,  suppose  this  dread  evil  sub- 
dued by  complete  knowledge,  and  again  from  our  ele- 
vated intellectual  position  we  look  back  over  the  ground. 
Shall  we  call  that  evil  which  was  the  necessary  condi- 
tion of  our  intellectual  elevation  ?  Evil,  doubtless,  it 
seems  to  us  individuals  who  have  suffered  and  are  still 
suffering  through  our  ignorance ;  but  is  such  indi- 
vidual suffering  or  individual  death  to  be  weighed 
against  the  psychical  elevation  of  the  race  ?  Ought  not 
the  individual  to  be  willing  to  suffer  thus  much  vicari- 
ously for  the  race  ?  Is  not  this  seeming  evil  also  a  real 
good  ? 

"  May  we  not,  then,  confidently  generalize  ?  May  we 
not  say  that  all  physical  evil  is  good  in  its  general  opera- 
tion, and,  if  sometimes  evil  in  its  specific  operation,  is 
so  only  through  our  ignorance  ?  "  *  The  Law  of  Being 
thus  fully  elaborated  was  more  simply  stated  by  the 
late  F.  W.  Robertson.  "  The  mountain  rock,"  he  says, 
"  must  have  its  surface  rusted  into  putrescence  and  be- 
come dead  soil  before  the  herb  can  grow.  The  destruc- 
tion of  the  mineral  is  the  life  of  the  vegetable.  Again 
the  same  process  begins.  The  '  corn  of  wheat  dies,' 
and  out  of  death  more  abundant  life  is  born.  Out  of 
the  soil  in  which  deciduous  leaves  are  buried,  the  young 
tree  shoots  vigorously,  and  strikes  its  roots  deep  down 
into  the  realm  of  decay  and  death.  Upon  the  life  of 
the  vegetable  world  the  myriad  forms  of  higher  life 

tality  and  Drummond's  comments  upon  it,  "Natural  Law  in  the 
Spiritual  World,"  chapter  on  "  Eternal  Life." 

*  "Evolution  and  Religious  Thought,"  pp.  328-332. 


344  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

sustain  themselves — still  the  same  law :  the  sacrifice  of 
life  to  give  life. 

"  Further  still :  have  we  never  pondered  that  mys- 
tery of  nature — the  dove  struck  down  by  the  hawk — 
the  deer  trembling  beneath  the  stroke  of  the  lion — the 
winged  fish  falling  into  the  jaws  of  the  dolphin  ?  It  is 
the  solemn  law  of  vicarious  sacrifice  again.  And  as 
often  as  man  sees  his  table  covered  with  flesh  of  ani- 
mals slain,  does  he  behold,  whether  he  thinks  of  it  or 
not,  the  deep  mystery  law  of  being.  They  have  sur- 
rendered their  innocent  lives  that  he  may  live."  * 

There  are  two  obvious  though  somewhat  superficial 
objections  to  this  teaching — that  physical  suffering  is  a 
law  of  being  whose  operation,  on  the  whole,  benefits 
creation. 

The  first  is  clearly  stated  by  Prof.  Huxley  in  these 
words :  "  We  are  told,"  he  says,  "  to  take  comfort  from 
the  reflection  that  the  terrible  struggle  for  existence 
tends  to  final  good,  and  that  the  suffering  of  the  an- 
cestor is  paid  for  by  the  increased  perfection  of  the 
progeny.  There  would  be  something  in  this  argu- 
ment," he  adds,  "if,  in  Chinese  fashion,  the  present 
generation  could  pay  its  debts  to  its  ancestors ;  other- 
wise it  is  not  clear  what  compensation  the  Eohijppus 
{First  Horse)  gets  for  his  sorrows  in  the  fact  that, 
some  millions  of  years  afterward,  one  of  his  descend- 
ants wins  the  Derby."  f 

The  answer  to  this  is  simply  that  the  life  of  every 
individual,  although  it  suffers  much,  is,  on  the  whole, 
a  happy  one ;   its  joys  far  outweigh  its  sorrows,  and 

*  Robertson's  "  Sermons,"  first  series,  No.  IX. 

f  "  Popular  Science  Monthly,"  April,  1888,  pp.  733,  734. 


EVOLUTION  AXE    TEE  PROBLEM    OF  EVIL.    345 

hence  life  is  worth  living  in  every  case.  Could  each 
animal  accept  Byron's  advice — 

"  Count  o'er  the  joys  thine  hours  have  seen, 
Count  o'er  thy  days  from  anguish  free," 

he  would  by  no  means  agree  with  the  pessimistic  poet 
that 

11  Whatever  he  has  been,  'tis  something  better  not  to  be." 

On  the  contrary,  he  would  confess  that  life  was  the 
greatest  of  blessings.  Life,  with  all  its  trials  and  suffer- 
ings, is  not  only  worth  living,  but  it  is  far  better  than 
non-existence. 

Indeed,  all  this  talk  about  the  rights  of  creatures  is 
nonsense.  We  are  utterly  bankrupt  in  relation  to  God. 
"  In  Him  we  live  and  move  and  have  oar  being  " ;  all 
that  we  are  or  have  are  gifts  to  us,  and  hence  it  is  ab- 
surd to  talk  about  God's  owing  us  anything.  Once 
show  that  a  thing  happens  to  us  according  to  a  law  of 
Nature — i.  e.,  a  law  of  God — and  that  must  stop  all 
complaints  against  One  to  whom  we  owe  everything. 
Prof.  Huxley's  remark  that  the  present  generation  owes 
something  to  its  ancestors  is  only  another  way  of  saying 
that  the  Creator  owes  certain  things  to  the  creature, 
which  we  may  safely  deny  in  toto. 

But,  secondly,  it  is  urged  :  "  Given  an  almighty, 
all-wise,  and  all-good  God,  and  it  necessarily  follows  that 
any  production  of  His  should  be  perfect.  Hence  there 
ought  to  be  no  necessity  for  such  a  law  of  suffering  as 
Le  Conte  and  Robertson  assert.  Everything  should  be 
created  perfect." 

We  answer  this  objection  with  a  single  question  : 
How  could  the  universe  he  created  by  different  laws 


346  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

from  those  ive  observe  in  operation  ?  Those  who  think 
the  Creator  could  produce  a  world  by  different  laws 
from  those  adopted  make  several  absurd  assumptions : 
First,  they  assume  that  Infinite  Wisdom  deliberately 
chose  a  method  of  operation  which  even  a  finite  mind 
would  not  have  adopted.  Is  not  this  necessarily  im- 
plied in  Prof.  Huxley's  remark  that  to  say  that  "  this  is 
the  best  of  all  possible  worlds  seems  little  better  than  a 
libel  on  possibility"?  Our  author,  had  he  existed  in 
the  beginning,  would  evidently  have  made  some  highly 
important  suggestions  to  the  Creator  as  to  the  proper 
method  of  His  procedure !  Let  us,  then,  cease  making 
such  absurd  charges  against  Infinite  Wisdom. 

Second,  those  who  make  the  objection  under  con- 
sideration not  only  accuse  the  Creator  of  deliberate 
folly,  but  they  also  forget  what  is  involved  in  the  cre- 
ation of  a  finite  order  of  things. 

If  a  finite  universe  exist  at  all,  must  not  the  Infinite 
Creator  make  a  condescension — must  He  not  limit  Him- 
self in  producing  it  ? 

The  truth  is-  "  a  certain  crude-minded  class  of  the- 
ologians are  accustomed  to  draw  the  most  sweeping  in- 
ferences from  the  omnipotence  of  God.  They  take 
the  word  omnipotence  in  an  undiscerning  and  coarse 
way ;  as  if  it  followed  indubitably  that  a  being  omnip- 
otent can  do  everything  he  really  wishes  to  have  done. 
But  force  has  no  relation  to  the  doing  of  many  things."  * 
It  can  not,  for  instance,  impel  a  free  agent  without  de- 
stroying his  freedom  to  the  doing  of  a  given  act ;  and  I 
incline  to  think  that  it  could  not  have  created  the 
world  by  different  methods  from  those  adopted.     At 

*  Horace  Bushnell,  "  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,"  p.  93. 


EVOLUTION  AND    TEE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.    347 

any  rate,  if  we  find  reason  to  believe  in  Infinite  Wis- 
dom as  well  as  Infinite  Power  as  the  prime  Cause  of  all 
things,  we  argue  most  rationally  in  urging  that  the  best 
laws  of  operation  have  been  adopted  in  the  production 
of  the  universe  ;  and  those  who  doubt  this  must  not 
indulge  in  brilliant  generalities  about  what  Omnipo- 
tence might  have  done  or  ought  to  do,  but  must  instruct 
Omniscience  in  detail ;  must  say  exactly  how  a  world 
of  minerals,  plants,  and  animals  might  be  produced 
absolutely  perfect  without  any  sacrifice  on  the  part  of 
individuals.  And  even  if  they  can,  by  some  unimagi- 
nable flight  of  the  imagination,  imagine  the  production 
of  such  a  world,  let  them  ask  themselves  this  question : 
"  Is  not  the  gradual  evolution  of  a  perfect  world  from 
chaos  a  greater  display  of  wisdom  and  power  than  the 
spasmodic  momentary  exertion  of  omnipotence  which 
they  probably  have  in  mind  would  be  ?  " 

So,  then,  we  conclude  that  physical  suffering  is  a 
great  and  necessary  law  of  evolution,  whose  operation 
will  ultimately  redound  to  the  glory  of  the  Creator  and 
the  welfare  of  His  creatures.* 


*  It  may  have  weight  with  some  to  remark  that  Mr.  Spencer 
holds  essentially  the  view  expressed  above.  "  Slowly  but  surely," 
he  says,  "  Evolution  brings  about  an  increasing  amount  of  happi- 
ness ;  all  evils  being  but  incidental.  By  its  essential  nature,  the 
processes  must  everywhere  produce  greater  fitness  to  the  conditions 
of  existence,  be  they  what  they  may.  Applying  alike  to  the  lowest 
and  the  highest  forms  of  organization,  there  is  in  all  cases  a  progress- 
ive adaptation,  and  a  survival  of  the  most  adapted.  If.  in  the 
uniform  working  out  of  the  process,  there  are  evolved  organisms  of 
low  types,  which  prey  on  those  of  higher  types,  the  evils  inflicted 
form  but  a  deduction  from  the  average  benefits.  The  universal  and 
necessary  tendency  toward  supremacy  and  multiplication  of  the 
best,  applying  to  organic  creation  as  a  whole  as  well  as  to  each 
species,  is  ever  diminishing  the  damage  done :  tends  ever  to  main- 


348  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY.' 

This  seems  to  be  the  place  to  make  a  few  remarks 
on  the  directly  practical  side  of  the  problem  we  are  con- 
sidering : 

Many  years  ago  the  cholera  broke  out  in  England, 
and  the  English  Church  bade  the  nation  to  prayer 
against  the  dread  disease.  Among  the  sensible  Chris- 
tians who  raised  their  voices  against  this  plague  was 
good  Charles  Kingsley.  He  said  his  prayers  against 
cholera,  and  then  rose  from  his  knees,  and,  in  his  mem- 
orable sermons  on  the  cholera,  gave  utterance  to  the 
following  sentiments  :  "  We  have  just  been  praying  to 
God  to  remove  from  us  the  cholera,"  he  said,  "  which 
we  call  a  judgment  of  God,  a  chastisement.  But  we 
can  hardly  expect  God  to  withdraw  His  chastisement 
unless  we  correct  the  sins  for  which  He  has  chastised 
us ;  and  therefore,  unless  we  find  out  what  particular 
sins  have  brought  this  evil  on  us.  We  can  not  flatter 
and  persuade  the  great  God  of  heaven  and  earth  into 
taking  away  the  cholera  from  us,  unless  we  find  out 
and  confess  what  we  have  done  to  bring  on  this  cholera, 
and  unless  we  repent- and  bring  forth  fruits  worthy  of 
repentance,  by  amending  our  habits  on  that  point,  and 
doing  everything  for  the  future  which  shall  not  bring 
on  the  cholera,  but  keep  it  off.  Do  not  let  us  believe 
this  time,  my  friends,"  continued  the  earnest  preacher, 

tain  those  most  superior  organisms  which,  in  one  way  or  other, 
escape  the  invasions  of  the  inferior  and  so  tends  to  produce  a  type 
less  liable  to  the  invasions  of  the  inferior.  Thus  the  evils  accom- 
panying Evolution  are  ever  self-eliminated.  Though  there  may  arise 
the  question,  Why  could  they  not  have  been  avoided  ¥  there  does 
not  arise  the  question,  Why  were  they  deliberately  inflicted?" 
Whatever  may  be  thought  of  them,  it  is  clear  they  do  not  imply 
gratuitous  malevolence,"  which  is  involved  in  the  old  view,  accord- 
ing to  our  author  ("  Principles  of  Biology,"  vol.  i,  p.  354,  etc.). 


EVOLUTION  AND   TEE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.    349 

"  in  the  pitiable  insincere  way  in  which  all  England 
believed  when  the  cholera  was  here  sixteen  years  ago. 
When  they  saw  human  beings  dying  by  thousands,  they 
all  got  frightened,  and  proclaimed  a  fast  and  confessed 
their  sins,  and  promised  repentance  in  a  general  way. 
But  did  they  repent  of  and  confess  those  sins  which 
had  caused  the  cholera?  Did  they  repent  of  and  con- 
fess the  covetousness,  the  tyranny,  the  carelessness, 
which  in  most  great  towns,  and  in  too  many  villages 
also,  forced  the  poor  to  lodge  in  undrained,  stifling 
hovels,  unfit  for  hogs,  amid  vapors  and  smells  which 
send  forth  on  every  breath  the  seeds  of  rickets  and  con- 
sumption, typhus  and  scarlet  fever,  and  worst  and  last 
of  all  the  cholera  f  Did  they  repent  of  their  sins  in 
that  ?  .Not  they.  Did  they  repent  of  the  carelessness 
and  laziness  and  covetousness  which  sends  meat  and  fish 
up  to  all  our  large  towns  in  a  half -putrid  state  ;  which 
fills  every  corner  of  London  and  the  great  cities  with 
slaughter-houses,  overcrowded  graveyards,  undrained 
sewers  ?  Not  they.  And  when  those  great  and  good 
men,  the  Sanitary  Commissioners  proved  to  all  England 
fifteen  years  ago  (1834)  that  cholera  always  appeared 
wrhere  fever  had  appeared ;  and  that  both  fever  and 
cholera  always  cling  exclusively  to  those  places  where 
there  were  bad  food,  bad  air,  crowded  bedrooms,  bad 
drainage  and  filth. ;  that  such  were  the  laws  of  God  and 
Nature,  and  always  had  been — they  took  no  notice  of 
it,  because  it  was  the  poor  rather  than  the  rich  who 
suffered  from  such  causes."  * 

These  are  very  instructive  words  in  every  respect, 
but  I  shall  merely  emphasize  two  important  thoughts 

*  Kingsley's  "  National  Sermons,"  sermon  xiii,  pp.  134-136. 


350  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

expressed  by  Kingsley  :  First,  lie  speaks  of  the  cholera 
as  a  "  chastisement "  sent  by  God  on  account  of  the 
sins  of  men,  and  he  shows  how  this  was  profoundly 
true  in  the  case  of  the  cholera  plague,  albeit  in  a  dif- 
ferent and  more  rational  sense  than  is  popularly  under- 
stood. We  often  hear  people  speak  of  this  or  that  calam- 
ity as  "a  Divine  visitation."  When  Johnstown,  Penn- 
sylvania, was  destroyed  (1889)  by  a  flood,  which  resulted 
from  the  breakage  of  an  imperfectly  built  dam,  it  was 
seriously  asked,  "  Were  the  Johnstown  people  sinners 
above  all  other  men  that  they  should  be  thus  afflicted 
by  the  Almighty?"  Such  a  notion  is  heathenish! 
This  was  the  idea  which  the  ancient  Israelites  enter- 
tained concerning  Noah's  flood  and  the  destruction  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  But  those  who  hold  such  views 
would  do  well  to  remember  our  Lord's  remarks  to  those 
who  told  him  on  one  occasion  that  Pilate  had  mingled 
the  blood  of  certain  Galileans  with  the  sacrifices. 
"  Suppose  ye,"  he  said,  "  that  these  Galileans  were  sin- 
ners above  all  the  Galileans,  because  they  suffered  such 
things  ?  I  tell  you  nay  !  Or  those  eighteen  upon  whom 
the  tower  in  Siloam  fell,  and  slew  them,  think  ye  that 
they  were  sinners  above  all  men  that  dwelt  in  Jerusa- 
lem ?  I  tell  you  Nay ;  but,  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall 
all  likewise  perish  "  (Luke,  xiii,  1,  5). 

This  is  a  distinct  condemnation  of  the  popular  idea 
of  "  Divine  visitations,"  and  a  clear  enunciation  of  the 
grand  fact  that  God  is  not  a  Being,  like  man,  who  gets 
angry  with  his  children  because  they  do  not  act  to  suit 
him  and  by  a  special  effort  of  his  will  destroys  them. 
He  has  indeed  established  certain  laws  the  violation  of 
which  brings  certain  evil  consequences,  and  He  has  en- 
dowed man  with  power  to  violate  these  laws,  and  if  he 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  PROBLEM   OF  EVIL.    351 

abuses  this  power  lie  suffers  in  consequence.     It  is  a 
law  of  God  that  fire  burns  and  water  flows ;  and  so,  if  a 
man  put  his  finger  in  the  fire,  or  undertake  to  stop  the 
flow  of  water  by  building  a  weak  dam,  he  must  suffer 
the  consequences.     It  is  a  law  of  Nature  that  certain 
conditions  will  produce  disease :  bad  food,  bad  water, 
bad  air,  bad  drainage,  etc.,  will  produce  fever  and  the 
like,  and  the  only  escape  from  these  evils  is,  as  Prof. 
Le  Conte  says,  knowledge— knowledge  of  the  laws  of 
Nature,  of  the  laws  of  health,  and  conformity  to  these 
laws.     Hence— and  this  is  the  main  fact  suggested  by 
Kingsley's  remarks— when  a  man  violates  God's  laws, 
he  must  not  blame  God  for  the  suffering  he  receives  in 
consequence.     God  has  given  him  a  mind  by  which  he 
may  learn  to  avoid  these  evils,  and  if  he  fails  to  use  it 
he,  not  God,  is  to  blame.     Let  me  not  be  misunder- 
stood :  I  do  not  say  that  man  is  omniscient  or  omnipo- 
tent, and  hence  can  by  wise  conduct  avoid  all  the  "  ills 
that  flesh  is  heir  to,"  but  I  do  say  that  many  of  those 
ills  are  due  to  man's  own  foolish  or  careless  or  sinful 
action  and  not  to  any  special  "  Divine  visitation,"  and 
in  such  cases  the  blame  should  be  laid  at  the  right  door 
—man's  door.     "  The  Popular  Science  Monthly "  for 
February,  18S8  (page  555,  etc.),  had  an  admirable  edi- 
torial on  "  The  Act  of  God  and  Human  Responsibility," 
which  is  very  suggestive  on  this  subject.     It  seems  that 
an  eminent  attorney  of  a  certain  railroad  had  written 
an  article  "  to  prove  that  some  railway  accidents  pro- 
ceed from  causes  so  far  beyond  human  control  that  we 
might  properly  apply  to  them  the  old  expression  <  act 
of  God.'     The  suggestion  is  that  in  such  cases  the  rail- 
road companies  should    hardly  be  held   responsible." 
The  editor  of  the  "Monthly,"  seeing  clearly  the  terrible 


352   EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

results  which  might  flow  from  such  teaching,  very  prop- 
erly joined  issue  with  the  lawyer,  and  urged  "  human 
responsibility "  in  essentially  the  same  manner  as  has 
been  urged  above  in  other  instances.  It  can  not  be  too 
earnestly  insisted  upon  that  man,  whether  he  be  abso- 
lutely free  or  not,  has  power  to  do  certain  things,  and 
so  far  he  is  responsible  for  the  results  of  his  actions. 
Hence  such  awful  events  as  the  Johnstown  flood,  rail- 
road accidents  from  weak  bridges,  disease  from  im- 
proper ventilation,  and  the  like,  are  attributable  to  man, 
not  to  God. 

And  when  this  fact  is  fully  and  practically  recog- 
nized, the  problem  of  evil  will  become  less  difficult  of 
solution. 

We  pass  now  to  the  moral  aspect  of  this  problem — 
to  a  consideration  of  sin.  And  the  first  question  to  be 
asked  and  answered  here  is,  What  is  sin  ?  Probably  no 
one  will  object  to  this  definition :  Sin  is  the  deliberate 
refusal  to  act  according  to  the  knowledge  and  power 
which  the  Creator  has  given  us.  When  we  perceive  that 
the  laws  of  Nature  (i.  e.,  the  laws  of  God)  dictate  a  cer- 
tain course,  and  we  refuse  to  pursue  that  course,  we  are 
guilty  of  sin.  For  instance,  when  wre  clearly  understand 
that  theft,  murder,  adultery,  and  the  like,  are  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  Nature  (of  God),  and  yet  we  steal,  murder, 
and  commit  adultery,  we  are  guilty  of  sin.  Of  course,  if 
man  was  originally  a  savage  animal,  devoid  of  the  power 
of  knowing  that  such  acts  were  contrary  to  Divine  law, 
and  if  his  will-power  were  then  so  weak  that,  even  if  he 
had  known  this,  he  could  not  have  acted  according  to 
such  knowledge,  he  was  not  then  guilty  of  sin — i.  e., 
willful  violation  of  what  was  known  to  be  Divine  law. 
But,  whatever  he  may  have  been  originally,  man  has  for 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.    353 

many  ages  been  able  to  discern  between  good  and  evil, 
and  to  choose  the  one  or  the  other ;  hence  he  has  so 
long  been  guilty  of  sin  and  is  responsible  for  his  con- 
duct. But  the  question  is,  Why  did  and  does  man  de- 
liberately, willfully,  consciously  choose  to  violate  Divine 
law  \  Is  he  incited  thereto  by  an  external  spirit — the 
Devil  %  It  is  well  known  that  this  is  the  popular  idea, 
but,  as  already  stated,  this  theory  simply  carries  us  one 
step  further  back,  and  does  not  solve  the  difficulty. 
For  the  question  inevitably  arises,  What  is  the  cause  of 
the  Devil  ?  And  if  we  say  that  God  is  the  author  of 
the  Devil,  we  might  as  well  say  at  once  that  God  is  the 
author  of  sin,  or  that  He  causes  man  to  sin,  and  have 
done  with  it.  Here  is  the  place  to  trace  the  evolution 
of  the  idea  of  a  personal  Evil  Spirit  or  Devil  which  is 
characteristic  of  at  least  a  portion  of  the  Scriptures. 

"  Devil  is  a  name,"  says  a  writer  on  this  subject, 
"  which  has  been  given  in  the  New  Testament  and  in 
Christian  theology  to  a  supreme  evil  personality  sup- 
posed to  rule  over  a  kingdom  of  evil  spirits,  of  whom 
he  is  the  chief,  and  to  be  the  restless  and  unfailing 
adversary  of  God.  The  Hebrew  term  denoting  <  adver- 
sary,' or  '  Satan,'  is  also  applied  to  this  supreme  Evil 
Spirit,  or  prince  of  the  kingdom  of  evil.  There  can  be 
no  question  that  such  an  Evil  Spirit  is  frequently 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament.  He  is  designated 
by  various  names,  such  as  '  the  Tempter,'  '  Beelzebub,' 
'the  Prince  of  Devils,'  'the  Strong  One,'  'the  Wicked 
One,'  '  the  Enemy,'  or  'the  Hostile  One.'  Throughout 
the  Gospels  these  terms  are  used  interchangeably,  and 
in  all  cases  seem  to  denote  the  same  active  power  or 
personality  of  evil  outside  man  and  exercising  influence 
over  him.     It  may  be  a  question  how  far  Jesus  Christ 


354:  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

himself  acknowledges  the  existence  of  such  an  evil 
power,  but  there  can  not  be  any  question  that  such  a 
being  was  recognized  in  the  current  belief  of  the  Jews 
in  his  time.  But  it  is  also  certain  that  this  belief 
among  the  Jews  was  one  of  gradual  growth,  and  is  not 
to  be  traced  in  the  Old  Testament  in  any  such  definite 
form  as  we  meet  with  in  the  New. 

"  The  expression  '  Satan  '  is  indeed  found  in  the  Old 
Testament,  but  only  five  times,  if  so  frequently,  as  a 
proper  name — thrice  in  the  book  of  Job  (i,  6,  12  ;  ii,  1), 
once  in  the  opening  of  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  I 
Chronicles  (although  here  the  allusion  to  a  distinct  per- 
sonality may  be  held  doubtful),  and  in  Zechariah  (iii,  1). 
In  all  other  places  where  the  word  occurs,  '  Satan '  is 
used  in  its  common  sense  of  '  adversary,'  a  sense  in 
which  it  also  occurs  in  the  Gospels  in  the  well-known 
passage  (Matthew,  xvi,  23)  where  our  Lord  addresses 
St.  Peter,  '  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan,'  or  '  adver- 
sary.' The  books  of  Chronicles  and  Zechariah  are  in- 
disputably among  the  last  writings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  and,  although  the  date  of  Job  is  unsettled,  it 
may  also  be  presumed  to  belong  to  a  late  period  in  the 
history  of  Revelation. 

"  In  the  earlier  prophetic  literature  of  the  Hebrews, 
there  is  no  recognition  of  any  spirit  of  evil  at  war  with 
Jehovah.  All  power  and  dominion  are,  on  the  con- 
trary, clearly  ascribed  to  Jehovah  himself,  who  is  su- 
preme in  heaven,  on  earth,  and  under  the  earth. 

"  The  connection  of  Satan  with  the  serpent  in  the 
garden  of  Eden  in  Genesis  (iii,  1-7)  is  an  inference  of 
later  dogmatic  opinion,  arising  probably  out  of  the  use 
of  the  expression  'old  Serpent'  applied  to  Satan  in 
Revelation  (xx,  2),  but  receives  no  countenance  from 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.    355 

the  Scriptural  narrative  itself,  which  speaks  of  the  ser- 
pent purely  as  an  animal,  and  pronounces  a  curse  against 
him  with  reference  to  his  animal  nature  solely.* 

"  The  idea  of  a  distinct  personality  of  evil,  therefore, 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  earlier  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and 
is  in  fact  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  the  older 
Hebrew  theology  that  Jehovah  was  the  sole  source  of 
all  power,  the  author  both  of  good  and  evil,  who  hard- 
ened Pharaoh's  heart  (Exodus,  x,  27,  cf.  Amos,  iii,  6) 
and  sent  a  lying  spirit  among  the  prophets  of  Ahab 
(Kings,  xxii,  20-23).  Even  in  the  later  Scriptures  in 
which  <  Satan,'  is  spoken  of  as  a  distinct  person,  there 
is  little  or  no  analogy  between  what  is  said  of  such  a 
person  in  these  Scriptures  and  what  is  said  of  him  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  <  Satan'  of  the  book  of 
Job  is  described  as  coming  among  '  the  sons  of  God,' 
to  present  himself  before  the  Lord.  He  is  the  image 
of  malice,  restlessness,  and  envy — the  willing  messenger 
of  evil  to  Job ;  but  he  is  not  represented  as  the  imper- 
sonation of  evil,  or  as  a  spiritual  assailant  of  the  patri- 
arch. He  is  really  a  delegated  agent  in  the  hands  of 
Jehovah  to  execute  His  will,  and  the  evils  with  which 
he  assails  Job  are  outward  evils.  The  picture  is  quite 
different  from  that  of  the  '  archangel  ruined,'  or  the 
Devil,  or  Satan,  of  later  theology. 

"  The  question  then  arises  as  to  the  special  source  of 
the  conception  of  the  Devil  as  a  fallen  and  evil  spirit. 
The  explanation  commonly  given  by  our  modern  criti- 
cal schools  is  that  it  sprang  out  of  the  intercourse  of  the 
Jews  with  the  Persians  during  their  period  of  exile. 

*  Cf.  Canon  Row's  "  Future  Retribution,"  chap,  vii,  pp.  157,  158, 

and  Dr.  W.  H.  Thompson's  "  Great  Argument,"  chap,  iii,  pp.  81-83, 

etc. 

17 


356   EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

"  In  the  Persian,  or  Iranian,  mythology  it  is  well 
known  that  a  personal  power  of  evil  was  conspicuously 
recognized.  The  Iranian  religion  divided  the  world 
betwixt  two  opposing,  self-existent  deities,  the  one  good 
and  the  other  evil,  but  both  alike  having  a  share  in  crea- 
tion and  man.  Ormuzd,  or  Ahuramazda,  was  holy  and 
true,  and  to  be  honored  and  worshiped.  But  Ahriman, 
or  Anramainyu,  the  evil-minded,  the  spirit  of  darkness, 
was  no  less  powerful,  and  claimed  an  equal  share  of 
man's  homage.  These  were  the  good  and  the  evil  in 
thought,  word,  and  deed.  Man  was  to  choose  betwixt 
the  two.  He  can  not  serve  both.  "With  this  dualistic 
system  the  Jews  came  in  contact  during  their  captivity 
at  Babylon,  and  are  supposed  to  have  retained  perma- 
nent traces  of  it  in  their  subsequent  theology.  .  .  .  The 
process  by  which  the  Jewish  mind  worked  out  the  con- 
ception and  the  whole  scheme  of  demonology  found  in 
the  New  Testament  was  of  course  gradual.  The  Book 
of  Wisdom,  a  product  of  Alexandrian- Jewish  thought, 
in  the  second  century  before  Christ,  which  speaks  of 
the  Devil  having  '  through  envy  introduced  evil  into 
the  world '  (chapter  ii,  24)  is  supposed  to  represent  a 
stage  in  the  development ;  and  the  apocryphal  books 
of  Enoch  and  Esdras  (iv),  the  former  of  which  is 
pre-Christian  (in  part  at  least)  indicate  further  stages. 
Another  stage  is  supposed  to  be  marked  by  the  recog- 
nition of  the  '  devil '  or  evil  spirit,  under  the  name  of 
Asmodeus,  in  the  book  of  Tobit  (chapter  iii,  8,  etc.— 
written  about  150  b.  a). 

"  There  is  certainly  a  remarkable  analogy  betwixt 
parts  of  the  eschatological  teaching  of  the  book  of 
Enoch  and  other  apocryphal  books  and  that  of  the 
Gospels.     But  the  development  of  Jewish  theology  as 


EVOLUTION  AND    THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.    357 

a  whole,  in  the  ages  immediately  antecedent  to  Chris- 
tianity, is  still  involved  in  considerable  obscurity,  and 
it  is  not  necessary,  in  this  connection,  to  enter  into  de- 
tails." *  Suffice  it  to  know  the  origin  of  the  conception 
of  an  Evil  Power  antagonistic  to  the  Good ;  and  that 
it  was  a  gradually  developed  human  speculation  on  the 
problem  of  evil.  What  shall  we  think  of  this  specula- 
tion? 

First,  let  it  be  remembered,  as  already  more  than 
once  stated,  that  the  idea  of  a  devil  as  the  author  of 
temptation  and  sin  does  not  solve  this  difficult  prob- 
lem, but  rather  embarrasses  us ;  for  if  such  a  spirit 
were  created,  then  God — the  Supreme  Spirit — was  his 
Creator,  and  we  thus  make  God  the  author  of  sin; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  devil  be  uncreated  and 
eternal,  God  is  no  longer  the  Supreme  Being.  In  the 
next  place,  let  it  be  observed  that  we  freely  grant  the 
possibility  of  the  existence  of  a  prince  of  the  devils 
or  evil  spirits.  Believing  as  we  do  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul,  and  that  death  does  not  in  any  way  affect 
the  soul,  we  believe  that  there  is  in  the  unseen  world,  as 
there  is  in  this,  a  large  number  of  evil  spirits,  and  as  in 
this  world  such  spirits  are  frequently  if  not  always 
marshaled  under  a  leader,  so  it  may  be  in  the  spirit- 
world.  It  is  one  of  Frederick  Robertson's  most  pro- 
found thoughts  that,  in  the  spirit-sphere,  spiritual  like- 
nesses will  draw  together.  The  spiritual  and  intel- 
lectual affinities  will  determine  the  relationships  of  that 
state.  "  I  shall  know,"  he  said,  "  and  converse  with 
men  whom  I  have  never  seen,  yet  for  whom  my  spirit 
has  the  profoundest  reverence,  while  many  with  whom 

*  "  Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  article  "  Devil." 


358  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

I  have  been  in  constant  communication  on  earth  I  shall 
never  see  in  that  other  world."  *  If  so — if  u  spiritual 
likenesses  draw  together,"  and  we  know  they  do  on 
earth — then  it  is  quite  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
evil  spirits  in  the  unseen  sphere  will  be  drawn  together 
under  one  leader.     But — 

Thirdly,  as  to  whether  these  spirits  or  their  leader 
can  and  do  influence  men  in  this  life,  we  can  never 
know.  The  influence  of  an  embodied  spirit  over  an- 
other in  the  flesh  is  an  insoluble  mystery.  We  know 
the  fact,  and  this  fact  is  sufficient  to  prevent  our  dog- 
matically asserting  that  a  disemboded  evil  spirit  can 
not  affect  an  embodied  spirit,  but  the  whole  question 
is  incapable  of  solution ;  unless,  indeed,  we  are  prepared 
to  accept  Spiritualism  pure  and  simple,  but  we  are  not 
quite  ready  for  this  now.  The  main  point  to  be  re- 
membered is  that  even  if  we  accept  either  the  popular 
doctrine  of  the  devil  or  the  Spiritualist's  notion,  we 
are  as  far  to  seek  as  ever  for  the  prime  origin  of  temp- 
tation and  sin. 

The  result,  then,  of  our  inquiry  thus  far  is  that  we 
are  driven  from  the  external  to  the  internal ;  we  can 
not  find  in  the  environment  of  either  the  devil  or  man  a 
sufficient  explanation  of  the  origin  of  sin  ;  it,  at  most, 
merely  furnishes  the  occasion,  the  sine  qua  non,  of  sin, 
but  does  not  give  the  impelling  motive  to  sin ;  and 
hence  we  must  look  within  the  finite  spirit  itself  for  the 
cause  of  sin. 

But  how  shall  we  do  this  with  any  degree  of  satis- 
faction ?  Are  not  these  eloquent  words  of  a  brilliant 
Agnostic  perfectly  true  ?     "  The  dark  continent  of  mo~ 

*  Robertson's  "  Life  and  Letters,"  appendix  i,  p.  385. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.    359 

tive  and  desire  has  never  been  explored.  In  the  brain, 
that  wondrous  world  with  one  inhabitant,  there  are  re- 
cesses dim  and  dark,  treacherous  shores,  where  seeming 
sirens  tempt  and  fade ;  streams  that  rise  in  unknown 
lands  from  hidden  springs,  strange  seas  with  ebb  and 
flow  of  tides,  resistless  billows  urged  by  storms  of  flame, 
profound  and  awful  depths  hidden  by  mists  of  dreams, 
obscure  and  phantom  realms  where  vague  and  fearful 
things  are  half  revealed,  jungles  where  passion's  tigers 
crouch,  and  skies  of  cloud  and  blue  where  fancies  fly 
with  painted  wings  that  dazzle  and  mislead  ;  and  the 
poor  sovereign  of  this  pictured  world  is  led  by  old  de- 
sires and  ancient  hates,  and  stained  by  crimes  of  many 
vanished  years,  and  pushed  by  hands  that  long  ago 
were  dust,  until  he  feels  like  some  bewildered  slave 
that  mockery  has  throned  and  crowned."  *  TFAy,  there- 
fore, a  man  should 

"  see  the  right,  and  approve  it  too; 
Abhor  the  wrong,  and  yet  the  wrong  pursue," 

we  can  not  tell.  We  know  the  fact ;  we  are  conscious 
of  the  power  to  choose  good  or  evil,  and  all  the  meta- 
physical gymnastics  ever  invented  can  never  disprove 
this  direct  dictum  of  consciousness  ;  we  know  that  we 
•are  influenced  by  some  power  called  "motive,"  or 
rather  by  various  motives,  and  we  know  that  we  can  act 
in  spite  of  certain  motives ;  but,  when  we  attempt  to 
explain  the  origin  of  motive,  we  are  lost  in  the  mysteri- 
ous and  the  insoluble.  We  can  only  be  sure  that  the 
Good   Spirit  (God)  tempteth  no  man,  for  such  an  idea 


*  Colonel  Ingersoll,  in  "  North  American  Review,"  June,  1888, 
p.  636. 


360  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

is  not  only  blasphemous,  it  is  absurd  ;  for  God  would  not 
ordaiu  laws  for  His  creatures  and  then  impel  them  to 
violate  those  laws ;  but  why  man  should  be  drawn  away 
of  his  own  lusts  (James,  i,  13-17),  especially  when  he  sees 
the  right,  and  approves  it  too,  and  is  conscious  of  power 
to  do  it,  is  an  inexplicable  mystery.  If  any  one  can 
solve  it,  he  is  the  man  we  are  looking-for.  Let  him  tell 
us  why  a  man  should  murder  another  for  money,  when 
he  not  only  knows  that  it  is  wrong,  but  also  that  he  will 
surely  suffer  in  consequence  ?  Why  such  greed  f  Or 
why  should  one  who  has  a  loving  wife  and  family  ruin  a 
young  girl  by  seduction,  when  he  knows  it  is  wrong  and 
that  he  will  be  punished  for  his  crime  ?  I,  for  one>  can 
not  answer  these  and  many  other  closely  allied  ques- 
tions. I  accept  the  facts,  and  I  assert  the  man's  re- 
sponsibility for  such  acts,  and  wait  for  more  light  on 
the  theoretical  aspect  of  this  transcendental  problem. 
Now,  1  fancy  I  hear  some  lover  of  dogmatics  exclaim 
in  disappointment :  "  So,  then,  this  is  the  upshot  of 
your  long  disquisition  on  the  origin  of  sin — that  we 
know  and  can  know  nothing  about  it !  I  knew  that 
before,"  he  would  doubtless  add ;  and  I  would  reply : 
"  Pardon  me,  my  friend,  you  were  ignorant  before,  but 
you  did  not  know  why  you  were  ignorant.  If  this  dis- 
quisition has  done  nothing  but  show  you  why  we  are 
ignorant  on  this  subject ;  if  it  has  exploded  any  of  the 
popular  fallacies  of  theology  and  clearly  stated  the  ex- 
act point  at  issue  ;  and,  finally,  if  it  has  aroused  thought 
on  that  issue — surely  it  is  worthy  of  attention,  and  this 
is  all  its  author  claims  for  it." 

We  turn  now  to  the  hardly  less  difficult  question, 
"Why  should  the  Creator  originate  such  a  being  as  man 
— a  being  endowed  with  power  to  disobey  Divine  law, 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  PROBLEM   OF  EVIL.    361 

when  lie  knew  the  terrible  results  which  would  flow 
from  such  a  creation?  The  answer  which  Evolution 
gives  is  an  old  answer  in  a  new  light,  and  may  be  un- 
satisfactory to  some,  but  it  is  quite  satisfactory  to  many 
others.  It  is  that  the  temporary  existence  of  sin  and 
suffering  will  ultimately  redound  to  the  welfare  of 
God's  creatures.  It  was  impossible  for  even  Omnipo- 
tence to  create  a  being  with  the  jiower  of  choice  between 
two  given  courses  without  thereby  allowing  the  possi- 
bility of  sin,  and  we  know  from  experience  that  this 
being  has  abused  this  power  for  some  reason  (self-pride, 
a  desire  to  show  his  independence,  or  for  some  other 
reason),  and  yet  the  creation  of  such  a  being  was  not 
only  the  crowning  glory  of  the  evolutionary  movement, 
but,  without  the  endowment  of  him  with  the  aforesaid 
2?ower  (choice),  moral  character — the  grandest  thing  in 
God's  universe — could  never  have  been  a  fact.  *  Evo- 
lution, therefore,  urges  that  the  ultimate  result  of  the 
creation  of  such  a  being  as  man,  notwithstanding  all  his 
evil  conduct,  will  redound  to  the  glory  and  welfare  of 
God's  universe.  But,  as  already  fully  stated,  the  dogma 
that  evil  is  to  be  everlasting,  hopelessly  complicates  this 
problem — renders  even  the  approximate  solution  given 
invalid;  but,  thank  God!  neither  our  own  conscience 
and  reason  nor  the  utterances  of  the  holy  men  whom^ 
He  has  sent  into  this  world  to  be  our  religious  guides, 
compel  us  to  believe  this  irrational  dogma,  f 

If  Evolution  did  not  commend  itself  to  our  minds 
on  any  other  ground,  it  ought  to  commend  itself  by  the 

*  See  Ilorace  Bushnell's  "  Nature  of  the  Supernatural,"  chapters 
iv-vii. 

f  See  "Death  of  Death,"  by  John  M.  Patton,  Randolph  &  Co., 
.Richmond,  Va. ;  a  most  powerful  work. 


362  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

rainbow  of  hope  which  it  flings  across  the  dark  clouds 
of  sin  and  suffering  which  lower  in  onr  moral  skies.  It 
does  this  not  by  urging  "  dithyrambic  hypotheses  and 
evasive  tropes,"  not  by  basing  its  claim  on  "  the  halt- 
ing reconciliation  of  ambiguous  and  opposing  texts  of 
Scripture,"  but  by  pointing  to  the  Revelation  of  God 
in  its  glorious  unity  as  it  appears  in  Nature  and  in  Man. 
It  shows  us  the  onward  and  upward  march  of  Being — 
and,  pointing  to  Perfection  and  Happiness,  it  says, 
"  There  is  the  one  far-off  divine  event  to  which  the 
whole  creation  moves,"  and  thus  it  removes  the  terrible 
incubus  of  sorrow  and  doubt  that  has  weighed  down 
the  spirits  of  so  many  of  God's  saints,  and  which  gave 
birth  to  these  melancholy  lines  : 

"  Fix  me  on  some  bleak  precipice, 

Where  I  ten  thousand  years  may  stand, 
Made  now  a  statua  of  ice, 
Then  by  the  summer  scorched  and  tanned. 

"  Place  me  alone  in  some  frail  boat 
'Mid  the  horrors  of  an  angry  sea ; 
Where  I,  while  time  shall  move,  may  float, 
Despairing  either  land  or  day ; 

"  Or,  under  earth  my  youth  confine 
To  th'  night  and  silence  of  a  cell, 
Where  scorpions  may  my  limbs  entwine, 
O  God !  so  Thou  forgive  me  hell !  " 

William  Habington. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EVOLUTION    AND   BODILY  RESURRECTION. 

One  of  the  most  impressive  scenes  in  Shakespeare 
is  the  first  scene  of  the  fifth  act  of  Hamlet,  Ham- 
let and  Horatio,  it  will  be  remembered,  enter  a  church- 
yard where  a  "  clown  "  is  digging  a  grave,  and,  after  a 
short  conversation  with  the  grave-digger  about  the  dif- 
ferent skulls  which  are  exhumed,  Hamlet  takes  one  of 
the  skulls,  and,  turning  to  Horatio,  remarks  :  "  To  what 
base  uses  we  may  return,  Horatio  !  Why  may  not  im- 
agination trace  the  noble  dust  of  Alexander,  till  he  find 
it  stopping  a  bung-hole?"  "'Twere  to  consider  too 
curiously  to  consider  so,"  replies  Horatio.  "  Ko,  faith, 
not  a  jot,"  answers  Hamlet ;  "  but  to  follow  him  thither 
with  modesty  enough,  and  likelihood  to  lead  it ;  as  thus  : 
Alexander  died,  Alexander  was  buried,  Alexander  re- 
turneth  into  dust ;  the  dust  is  earth  ;  of  earth  we  make 
loam  ;  and  why  of  that  loam,  whereto  he  was  con- 
verted, might  they  not  stop  a  beer-barrel  ? 

**  Imperial  Caesar  dead  and  turned  to  clay, 
Might  stop  a  hole  to  keep  the  wind  away; 
O,  that  that  earth  which  kept  the  world  in  awe, 
Should  patch  a  wall  to  expel  the  winter's  flaw  !  " 

To  one  who  held  the  view  of  the  good  old  Bishop 
Pearson,  that  the  very  particles  of  which  our  bodies  are 


364  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

composed  at  death  will,  on  the  resurrection  morning, 
be  gathered  together  from  the  four  corners  of  the  globe, 
to  which  they  may  have  been  borne,  such  a  train  of 
thought  was  anything  but  pleasant,   and  might  raise 
many    doubts.*      Pearson's    view   has   been  variously 
modified  by  modern  theologians.     It  is  now  generally 
admitted,  among   educated   minds,   that   the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  First  Corinthians  not  only  negatives  the  idea 
of  the  re-collection  of  the  precise  atoms  which  are  dis- 
solved in  and  by  death,  but  it  further  teaches  that  the 
celestial  body  will  be  very  different  in  every  respect 
from  the  terrestrial  body.     "  Flesh  and  blood  can  not 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  so  our  celestial  bod- 
ies will  be  of  a  spiritual  and  immortal  nature.     It  is 
well  known  that  all  physicists,  of  any  eminence  at  least, 
believe  in  the  existence  of  ether — i.  e.,  a  very  thin,  at- 
tenuated substance  not  even  discernible  by  the  micro- 
scope, whose  vibrations  produce  light.     Suppose,  then, 
this  ether  formed  into  a  bodily  shape  as  the  basis  of 
thought,  feeling,  and  action,  and  we  have  an  illustra- 
tion of  what  St.  Paul  is  supposed  to  mean  by  a  spiritual 
body ;  it  is  a  body  etherealized,  composed  of  refined, 
endurable  matter ;  incapable,  therefore,  of  destruction 
by  dissolution. f     This  is  merely  an  illustration.     But 
this  highly  spiritual  doctrine  is  by  no  means  universally 
prevalent,  even  among  professed  religious  teachers  and 
theologians.     One  of  the  most  remarkable  expositions 
of  the  old  crude  and  irrational  dogma  of  a  gross  mate- 


*  Pearson's  "  Exposition  of  the  Creed,"  articles  "  Christ's  and 
Man's  Resurrection." 

f  See  a  recent  work,  "  The  Foundations  of  the  Creed,"  by  the 
Bishop  of  Carlisle  (Dr.  Goodwin).  John  Murray,  London,  England, 
article  "  Resurrection  of  the  Body." 


EVOLUTION  AND  BODILY  RESURRECTION.    365 

rial  resurrection  was  given  some  time  ago  by  that  popu- 
lar though  erratic  preacher,  the  Rev.  T.  De  Witt  Tal- 
mage : 

"  You  have  noticed,"  he  said,  "  in  reading  the  story 
of  the  resurrection,  that  almost  every  account  of  the 
Bible  gives  the  idea  that  the  characteristic  of  that  day 
will  be  a  great  sound.  I  do  not  know  that  it  will  be 
very  loud,  but  I  know  it  will  be  very  penetrating.  In 
the  mausoleum  where  silence  has  reigned  a  thousand 
years  that  voice  must  penetrate.  In  the  coral  cave  of 
the  deep  that  voice,  must  penetrate.  Millions  of  spirits 
will  come  through  the  gates  of  eternity  and  they  will 
come  to  the  earth,  and  they  will  cry :  '  Give  us  back 
our  bodies ;  we  gave  them  to  you  in  corruption,  surren- 
der them  now  in  in  corruption.'  Hundreds  of  spirits 
hovering  about  the  crags  of  Gettysburg,  for  there  the 
bodies  are  buried.  A  hundred  thousand  spirits  coming 
to  Greenwood,  for  there  the  bodies  are  buried,  waiting 
for  the  reunion  of  body  and  soul. 

"  All  alon^  the  sea  route  from  New  York  to  Liver- 
pool,  at  every  few  miles  where  a  steamer  went  down, 
departed  spirits  coming  back  hovering  over  the  wave. 
There  is  where  the  City  of  Boston  perished.  Found  at 
last.  There  is  where  the  President  perished.  Steamer 
found  at  last.  There  is  where  the  Central  America 
went  down.  Spirits  hovering,  waiting  for  the  reunion 
of  body  and  soul.  Out  on  the  prairie  a  spirit  alights. 
There  is  where  a  traveler  died  in  the  snow.  Crash 
goes  Westminster  Abbey,  and  the  poets  and  orators 
come  forth.  Wonderful  mingling  of  good  and  bad — 
Wilberforce  the  good,  Queen  Elizabeth  the  bad.  Crash 
go  the  pyramids  of  Egypt,  and  the  monarchs  come  forth. 
Who  can  sketch  the  scene?     I  suppose,  one  moment 


366  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

before  that  general  rising,  there  will  be  a  universal 
silence,  save  as  you  hear  the  grinding  of  the  wheels  or 
the  clatter  of  the  hoofs  of  a  procession  passing  unto  the 
cemetery.  Silence  in  all  the  caves  of  the  earth,  silence 
on  the  side  of  the  mountain,  silence  down  in  the  valleys 
and  far  out  into  the  sea.  Silence !  But  in  a  moment, 
in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  as  the  archangel's  trumpet 
comes  pealing,  rolling,  crashing  across  the  mountain 
and  the  sea,  the  earth  will  give  one  terrific  shudder,  and 
the  graves  of  the  dead  will  heave  like  the  waves  of  the 
sea,  and  Ostend  and  Sebastopol  and  Chalons  will  stalk 
forth  in  the  lurid  air,  and  the  drowned  will  come  up 
and  wring  out  their  wet  locks  above  the  billows ;  and 
all  the  land  and  all  the  sea  become  one  moving  mass  of 
life — all  conditions  gazing  in  one  direction  and  upon 
one  throne,  the  throne  of  the  resurrection.  'All  who 
are  in  their  graves  shall  come  forth.'  " 

It  is  not  necessary  to  point  out  the  absurdity  of  this 
crude,  grossly  materialistic  view  of  the  resurrection  ;  but 
I  cite  it  merely  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  one  of 
the  most  popular  preachers  in  the  land,  by  clinging  to 
the  mere  letter  of  a  few  disjointed  texts  of  Scripture, 
can  declare  to  a  large  and  applauding  audience  of  New- 
Yorkers  such  utter  nonsense.  Surely  a  chapter  on 
"bodily  resurrection,"  therefore,  is  not  unnecessary. 
And  first  we  will  trace,  as  clearly  as  possible,  the  his- 
torical development  of  this  doctrine.  Mr.  Spencer 
thinks  it  originated  from  the  primitive  idea  that  death 
was  "a  long-suspended  animation.  Savages  attempt 
to  revive  the  corpse  by  ill-usage  ;  they  call  it  by  names, 
and  address  to  it  reproaches  or  inquiries  ;  they  endeavor 
to  feed  it,  and  leave  food  and  drink  with  it ;  they  supply 
fire  to  cook  by  or  to  keep  off  cold ;  they  take  care  to 


EVOLUTION  AND  BODILY  RESURRECTION    307 

prevent  injury  by  wild  beasts  and  arrest  decay  (hence 
the  mummies  of  Egypt)  ;  and  they  inflict  injuries  upon 
themselves  to  signify  their  subordination  to  the  departed 
in  the  hope  of  recalling  to  its  '  tenement  of  clay,'  the 
'  other-self '  which,  they  fancy,  has  merely  gone  away 
for  a  longer  time  than  he  usually  did  during  sleep, 
swoon  etc."  * 

The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  was  a  part  of  the 
old  Persian  (Zoroastrian)  Creed.  "  We  find  it  plainly 
stated  in  portions  of  the  Zendavesta  (Persian  Bible), 
which,  if  not  among  the  earliest,  are  at  any  rate  of  very 
considerable  antiquity."  f  "  The  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body,"  says  Dr.  Cnarles  Hodge,  u  is  not 
exclusively  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  It  is  found,  in  dif- 
ferent forms,  in  many  of  the  ancient  religions  of  the 
world.  The  rationalists,"  he  adds,  "  assume  that  the  He- 
brews borrowed  this  doctrine  from  their  heathen  neigh- 
bors, in  proof  of  which  they  urge  that  the  doctrine  does 
not  appear  in  those  portions  of  the  Scriptures  which, 
were  written  before  the  Babylonish  captivity."  \  But,  of 
course,  our  author  aims  by  various  unsatisfactory  argu- 
ments to  disprove  "  the  rationalist's  "  conclusion. 

All  such  attempts,  however,  fail  in  the  presence  of 
these  three  facts : 

First,  that  the  Persians  held  the  doctrine  of  the  res- 
urrection. 

Secondly,  that  this  doctrine  does  not  appear  in  the 
earliest  portions  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  and — • 

Thirdly,    after    the    Babylonish    captivity,    during 

*  Spencer's  "  Sociology,"  i,  pp.  157-1G8. 

f  Rawlinson's  "  Ancient  Monarchies,"  "  Third  Monarchy,"  chap- 
ter IT. 

\  Hodge's  "  Theology,"  iii,  pp.  771-789. 


368  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

which  the  Jews  came  in  contact  with  the  Persians,  this 
dogma  assumes  a  prominent  place  in  their  religious  sys- 
tem. 

Even  Dean  Milman  says  that  in  II  Maccabees,  xii,  44 
("for  if  he  had  not  hoped  that  they  who  were  slain 
should  have  risen  again"  etc.),  we  have  the  "  earliest  dis- 
tinct assertion  of  the  Jewish  belief  in  the  resurrection."  * 
The  Samaritans  and  the  Sadducees,  who  originated 
about  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  rejected  the 
dogma  of  the  resurrection  ;  f  while  the  Pharisees,  who 
also  originated  about  the  same  time,  adopted  and  strenu- 
ously advocated  this  doctrine  ;  and  thus  it  passed  on  into 
the  Christian  creed.  As  already  intimated,  this  doc- 
trine has  been  a  great  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of 
offense  to  many  pious  and  thoughtful  minds,  and  espe- 
cially in  our  day,  when  our  conceptions  of  the  future  life 
are  being  elevated,  purified,  and  spiritualized,  the  notion 
of  a  material  resurrection  is  becoming  peculiarly  offen- 
sive. 

Pelief  has  been  sought,  first,  by  taking  the  word 
resurrection  in  &  figurative  sense,  and  understanding  it 
to  mean  "  the  rising  of  the  soul  from  spiritual  death  to 
spiritual  life."  This  seems  to  have  been  the  view  of  the 
ancient  heretics,  Hymenseus  and  Philetus,  who  said  of 
Christians  that  their  "  resurrection  was  past  already  " 
(II  Timothy,  ii,  17, 18).  Again  :  "  The  Swedenborgians 
hold  that  man  has  two  todies,  an  external  and  an  inter- 
nal, a  material  and  a  psychical.  The  former  dies  and 
is  deposited  in  the  grave,  and  there  remains,  never  to 

*  Dr.  William  Smith's  "  New  Testament  History,"  student's 
series,  p.  39,  note. 

\  Ewald,  "  History  of  Israel  "  (English  translation),  vol.  iv,  p.  215 
et  seq.,  and  v,  p.  275  et  seq.,  and  viii,  83  et  seq.,  Matthew  xxii,  23. 


EVOLUTION  AND  BODILY  RESURRECTION.    369 

rise  again.  The  other  does  not  die,  but  in  union  with 
the  soul  passes  into  another  state  of  existence.  The 
only  resurrection,  therefore,  which  is  ever  to  occur, 
takes  place  at  the  moment  of  death." 

Thirdly,  others  seek  relief  from  the  absurdities  of 
the  old  dogma  in  St.  Paul's  exposition  of  it  in  I  Corinth- 
ians xv.  The  Apostle  there  states  that  "flesh  and 
blood  can  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  hence 
the  body  "  sown  in  corruption  is  raised  in  incorruption  ; 
it  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body ; 
this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption."  In  short, 
the  Apostle  seems  to  mean  that  the  body  which  is  buried 
perishes  utterly  and  "  God  giveth  us  bodies  as  it  hath 
pleased  him  "  (v,  38). *  This  is  certainly  a  great  advance 
on  the  old  Jewish  view,  but  there  are  many  good  and 
learned  people  nowadays  who  do  not  believe  even  this 
theory  of  the  resurrection. f 

In  the  first  place,  they  see  no  necessity  for  any  res- 
urrection of  bodies.  The  spirit,  as  all  admit,  will  exist 
for  ages,  between  death  and  the  resurrection  morning, 
without  any  body,  and  it  certainly  seems  wholly  un- 
necessary that  then  it  should  be  given  a  body. 

Secondly,  it  is  urged  by  scientific  minds  that  the 
material  universe  is  wearing  out,  and  it  will  finally  be 
utterly  dissolved,  will  vanish  "  into  thin  air  "  or  rather 
something  infinitely  thinner,  and  this  dissolution,  of 
course,  involves  the  destruction  of  human  as  well  as 
cosmical  bodies.  Thus  Profs.  Stewart  and  Tait,  in 
their  most  remarkable  little  book,  "  The  Unseen  Uni- 
verse," tell  us :  "  The  visible  universe  may  with  per- 


*  See  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle's  (Dr.  Goodwin's)  recent  work  on 
"  The  "Foundations  of  the  Creed,"  chapter  xii. 
f  See  p.  404. 


370  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

feet  truth  be  compared  to  a  vast  heat-engine.  .  .  .  The 
sun  is  the  furnace  or  source  of  high-temperature-heat 
of  our  system,  just  as  the  stars  are  for  other  systems, 
and  the  energy  which  is  essential  to  our  existence  is  de- 
rived from  the  heat  which  the  sun  radiates,  and  repre- 
sents only  an  excessively  minute  portion  of  that  heat. 
But,  while  the  sun  thus  supplies  us  with  energy,  he  is 
himself  getting  colder,  and  must  ultimately,  by  radia- 
tion into  space,  part  with  the  life-sustaining  power 
which  he  at  present  possesses.  Besides  the  inevitable 
cooling  of  the  sun,  we  must  also  suppose  that,  owing  to 
something  analogous  to  ethereal  friction,  the  earth  and 
the  other  planets  of  our  system  will  be  drawn  spirally 
nearer  and  nearer  to  the  sun,  and  will  be  at  length  in- 
gulfed in  his  mass.  In  each  case  there  will  be,  as  the 
result  of  the  collision,  the  conversion  of  visible  energy 
into  heat,  and  a  partial  and  temporary  restoration  of  the 
power  of  the  sun.  At  length,  however,  this  process 
will  have  come  to  an  end,  and  he  will  be  extinguished 
until,  after  long  but  not  immeasurable  ages,  by  means 
of  the  same  ethereal  friction  his  black  mass  is  brought 
into  contact  with  that  of  one  or  more  of  his  neighbors. 
.  .  .  Thus  the  tendency  is  that  the  sun  shall  ultimately 
absorb  the  various  planets  of  the  system,  his  heat  and 
energy  being  recruited  by  the  process.  Now,  let  us 
imagine  that  the  same  processes  are  simultaneously 
going  on  in  one  of  the  nearer  fixed  stars,  say  for  in- 
stance in  Siriics.  After  unimaginable  ages  these  two 
stars,  the  sun  and  Sirius,  having  each  long  since  swal- 
lowed up  his  attendants,  but  being  nevertheless  ex- 
hausted in  heat-energy  on  account  of  radiation  into 
space,  may  be  imagined  to  be  traveling  toward  one  an- 
other, slowly  at  first,  but  afterward  with  an  accelerated 


EVOLUTION  AND  BODILY  RESURRECTION.     371 

motion.  They  will  at  last  approach  each  other  with  a 
great  velocity,  and  finally  form  one  system.  Ultimate- 
ly the  two  will  rush  together  and  form  one  mass,  the 
orbital  energy  of  each  (or  rather  that  portion  of  this 
energy  which  remains  after  ethereal  friction)  being  con- 
verted into  heat,  and  the  matter  being  in  consequence 
probably  partly  smashed  into  mere  dust,  and  partly  en- 
veloped and  transformed  into  a  gaseous,  nebulous  con- 
dition. Ages  pass  away  and  the  large  mass  ultimate- 
ly shares  the  same  fate  that  long  since  overtook  the  sin- 
gle masses  which  composed  it ;  that  is  to  say,  it  shrinks 
and  throws  off  planets,  but  gives  out  the  greater  part  of 
its  light  and  heat  into  space  and  gradually  becomes  cold 
and  dark,  until  at  length  it  comes  to  form  one  of  the 
constituents  of  a  still  more  stupendous  collision  and  has 
its  temperature  raised  once  again  by  the  conversion  of 
visible  energy  into  heat."  This  process  of  killing  off 
worlds,  our  authors  argue,  will  go  on  until  "  the  very 
material  of  the  visible  universe  will  ultimately  vanish 
into  the  invisible."  * 

The  grand  and  fundamental  idea  of  this  remarkable 
little  book  is,  as  its  name  implies,  that  the  visible  and 
material  universe  has  been  developed  out  of  the  invisi- 
ble, spiritual  universe  and  will  return  into  it.  The 
spiritual  has,  so  to  speak,  assumed  a  material,  mortal 
coil  which,  given  time  enough,  it  (he)  will  "  shuffle  off" 
and  return  to  its  originally  purely  spiritual  condition. 
It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  doctrine  which  holds 
that  we  shall  possess  material  bodies  "in  the  unseen 
universe  "  is  inconsistent  and  irreconcilable  with  such 


*  "  The  Unseen  Universe,"  pp.  126,  127,  and  165-167,  Macinillan 
&  Co.,  1886. 


372  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

teaching.  "  Under  these  circumstances,"  our  authors 
truly  say,  "we  have  three  honest  alternatives.  In  the 
first  place,  we  may  acknowledge  the  truth  of  their  posi- 
tion and  change  our  views ;  or,  secondly,  we  may  com- 
bat their  argument  regarding  the  alleged  incompati- 
bility of  the  Traditionalists'  position  with  the  Principle 
of  Continuity,  advocated  by  the  scientists ;  or,  lastly, 
we  may  decline  to  accept  this  scientific  principle  in 
matters  which  concern  our  faith." 

But,  as  the  authors  also  remark,  "  the  members  of 
the  religious  school  who  believe  in  a  material  resurrec- 
tion do  not  choose  either  of  these  alternatives,  but  rather 
attempt  to  brand  them"  (Stewart  and  Tait)  "as  infidels 
and  materialists,  apparently  forgetting  (as  usual)  that 
such  a  method  of  conducting  a  discussion  is  neither 
Christ-like  nor  convincing."  *  Not  only,  it  may  be 
added,  do  the  Traditionalists  attempt  to  refute  such  ar- 
guments by  branding  their  authors  as  infidels  and  mate- 
rialists (although  they  believe  the  Spiritual  to  be  the 
only  real  substance  !),  but  their  favorite  method  of  dis- 
posing of  such  arguments  is  to  exclaim  :  "  All  specula- 
tion !  all  theory !  unprovable  hypothesis ! "  It  is  ne- 
cessary, therefore,  to  remark  here,  once  for  all,  that 
while  hypothesis  plays  an  important  part  in  physical  sci- 
ence (although  to  no  greater  extent  surely  than  in  The- 
ology /),  yet  there  are  certain  great  facts  which  Science 
is  as  sure  of  as  it  is  possible  to  be  sure  of  anything.  No 
intelligent  person  would  ba  so  silly  as  to  deny  the  rota- 
tion of  the  earth  on  its  axis  and  around  the  sun  because 
the  physicists  can  not  explain  the  nature  of  that  force 
("  gravity  ")  which  produces  this  effect.     The  ultimate 

*  Preface  to  third  edition  of  "  The  Unseen  Universe,"  pp.  20,  21. 


EVOLUTION  AND  BODILY  RESURRECTION    373 

destruction  of  the  material  world  is  as  certain  as  the 
revolution  of  the  earth,  and  hence  no  one  should  demur 
to  conclusions  drawn  from  this  "  coming  event"  which 
is  casting  more  than  a  "shadow"  before,  because  of  its 
supposed  speculative  or  hypothetical  character.  It  is 
certain  to  come,  no  matter  how  long  its  advent  may  be 
postponed,  and  it  is  not  rational  that  those  who  believe 
in  eternity,  and  the  eternal  life  of  soul  and  body,  should 
hesitate  to  glance  down  the  vistas  of  the  future  to  the 
time  of  that  awful  catastrophe.  It  is  the  height  of  folly 
to  teach  a  doctrine  about  eternity  which  we  know  eter- 
nity will  explode.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  seems 
rational  to  adopt  Profs.  Stewart  and  Tait's  view  that  we 
are  to  exist  as  pure  spirits  in  "  the  unseen  universe." 

Of  course,  there  is  manifestly  one  great  difficulty, 
perhaps  more,  in  holding  this  view :  we  can  not  conceive 
or  think  of  pure  spirits  existing  and  operating  without 
some  sort  of  form — i.  e.,  body.  But  our  inability  to  con- 
ceive such  action  by  no  means  proves  its  impossibility. 
It  is  more  than  probable  that,  if  we  now  existed  as  dis- 
embodied spirits,  we  should  be  unable  to  conceive  of  a 
spirit's  acting  with,  on,  in,  or  through  a  body.  The  in- 
conceivability of  a  thing  by  a  Unite  mind  is  by  no  means 
a  proof  of  its  impossibility.  From  all  this  it  appears 
that  the  real  question  is,  Shall  we  believe  in  the  eternity 
of  matter?*  Few  Christians  believe  that  "  matter"  has 
always  existed,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  think  it  was 
created :  once  it  was  not.  If  so,  is  it  not  unreasonable  to 
suppose  that,  once  in  existence,  it  will  last  forever?  Of 
course,  if  it  should  exist  forever,  then  we  might  more 
reasonably  believe  in  the  immortality  of  physical  bodies, 
but  sound  philosophy  as  well  as  sound  science  negatives 
this  idea. 

*  See  p.  405. 


374  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

Now,  the  Traditionalist  will  doubtless  fall  back  on  the 
mere  letter  of  St.  Paul's  teaching,  and  urge  that  he  has 
settled  this  question  for  us.  No  one  has  a  profounder 
reverence  for  St.  Paul  than  I  have.  His  theory  of  the 
resurrection  was  certainly  a  great  advance  on  the  older 
Pharisaic  doctrine,  yet  its  infallibility  may  be  questioned 
for  two  reasons  :  First,  while  it  is  an  advance  on  the  old- 
er Pharisaic  dogma,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that 
it  is  anything  more  than  another  stage  in  the  evolution 
of  that  doctrine.  If  St.  Paul  erred  in  his  idea  of  Christ's 
second  advent  (and  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  expect- 
ed the  speedy  return  of  the  Master) ,  it  is  not  unreason- 
able to  suppose  that  he  was  fallible  on  the  subject  of 
the  resurrection,  which  was  so  closely  connected  in  the 
mind  of  the  primitive  Christian  with  the  second  advent. 
But,  secondly — and  this  I  would  urge  strongly — are  we 
not  told  in  another  part  of  the  New  Testament  that 
"  the  day  will  come  in  the  which  the  heavens  shall  pass 
away  with  a  great  noise  and  the  elements  shall  melt 
with  fervent  heat,  the  earth  also  and  the  works  that  are 
therein  shall  be  burned  up"  ?  (II  Peter,  iii,  10).  Should 
we  not  "  interpret  Scripture  by  Scripture,"  and  is  not 
this  teaching  of  Second  Peter  exactly  the  same  as  that 
of  "  The  Unseen  Universe  "  ?  (this  verse  heads  chapter 
iii  of  that  work).  Are  we  not  then  justified  in  conclud- 
ing that,  while  St.  Paul  knew  much,  was  profoundly 
inspired,  there  was  one  even  among  the  early  disciples 
who  looked  further  than  he — 

"  Beyond  the  verge  of  that  blue  sky 
Where  God's  sublimest  secrets  lie  "  ? 

Second  Peter  is  being  confirmed  by  later  investiga- 
tions, while  First  Corinthians  is  not ;  and  therefore  we 
must  make  a  choice.    As  a  Protestant  I  claim  the  right 


EVOLUTION  AND  BODILY  RESURRECTION,    375 

of  private  judgment  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
and  I  hold  that  the  Bible  and  Science  lead  us  to  believe 
that  the  future  state  is  to  be  a  higher  and  more  spirit- 
ual state  in  every  respect  than  this,  and  hence  we  must 
give  up,  among  other  things,  the  Talmagean  conception 
of  the  final  judgment,  and  of  heaven  and  hell,  which 
shall  consist  of  a  grand  assize  in  which  bodies  shall  be 
seen  rising  out  of  the  ocean,  scrambling  down  from  the 
mountain-top,  treading  with  weary  feet  over  vast  prairies 
or  perhaps  borne  by  some  invisible  hand  through  mid- 
air to  the  Great  White  Throne,  there  to  be  judged  and 
sent  away,  some  to  the  Celestial  City  with  golden  streets 
and  silver  palaces ;  others  to  the  lower  regions  "  where 
their  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched  "  ;  and 
we  must  rather  believe  that  the  present  material  universe 
shall  gradually  pass  into  a  spiritual  cosmos  or  order,  from 
which  all  sin  and  sorrow  and  suffering  and  ignorance 
shall  be  banished,  and  God  shall  be  all  and  in  all — the 
center  of  the  Spiritual  System  around  which  shall  re- 
volve all  finite  spirits,  or  rather  in  whom  we  shall,  in  a 
far  deeper  sense  than  now,  "  live  and  move  and  have 
our  being."  All,  therefore,  that  we  can  rationally  mean 
when  we  say,  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  "  I  believe  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,"  is  that  we  believe  in  individ- 
ual immortality  or  the  immortality  of  individual  self- 
conscious  spirit.  This  is  the  great  truth  which  lies  at 
the  root  of  this  article  of  the  Christian  creed.  Many 
believe  in  the  immortality  or  eternity  of  the  universal 
Being,  but  not  in  the  eternity  of  individual  souls.  These, 
it  is  claimed,  are  like  bubbles  on  the  ocean — they  arise 
for  a  short  time  and  then  sink  back  into  the  sea  of  Be- 
ing. The  Christian  creed  protests  against  this  error, 
and  asserts  the  immortalitv  of  individuals. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

EVOLUTION    AND   LMMOKTALITY. 

What  am  I  ?  Whence  came  I  ?  Whither  am  I 
going  ?  These  are  the  great  questions  that  agitate  all 
thinking  minds,  even  among  the  masses.  While  theo- 
logians are  wasting  their  energies  discussing  questions 
of  Church  polity  or  theories  whose  foundations  are  of 
sand,  men  and  women  everywhere  are  crying  out  for 
some  assurance  that  Death  does  not  end  all ;  that  when 
Life's  fitful  dream  is  ended  they  shall  forever  rest  their 
weary  heads  upon  the  bosom  of  a  loving  Father.  The 
Christian  and  the  Spiritualist,  of  course,  believe  in 
immortality,  on  the  ground  of  (alleged)  positive  evi- 
dence, viz.,  the  manifestation  of  Jesus  and  other  spirits 
after  death  to  men  on  earth. 

But  many  thoughtful  minds,  considering  this  evi- 
dence not'  so  "  positive"  as  the  case  demands,  seek  for 
the  natural  grounds  of  belief  in  immortality,  and  so 
this  chapter  is  devoted  to  a  consideration  of  this  sub- 
ject. 

As  more  than  once  stated  in  this  work,  evolution- 
ists, especially  Mr.  Spencer  and  his  school,  think  that 
man  first  conceived  the  idea  of  life  after  death  from 
the  phenomena  of  dreams,  swoons,  etc.,  during  which 
the  "  other-self "  was  supposed  to  leave  the  body  and 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  377 

return  to  it  after  a  while;  and  so  at  death  it  was 
supposed  that  the  soul  had  merely  gone  away  for  a 
longer  period,  and  this  belief  is  asserted  to  be  universal. 
"  Travelers,"  says  Prof.  Fiske,  "  have  now  and  then 
reported  the  existence  of  races  of  men  quite  destitute 
of  religion,  or  of  what  the  observer  has  learned  to 
recognize  as  religion ;  but  no  one  has  ever  discovered 
a  race  of  men  devoid  of  a  belief  in  ghosts."  *  This 
universal  belief  in  a  life  after  death  is  one  fact  com- 
monly urged  in  proof  of  immortality.  It  is  not  reason- 
able to  suppose,  it  is  said,  that  all  men  have  been  de- 
ceived ;  there  must  be  some  basis  for  this  universal 
faith.  Again,  it  has  been  urged  that  a  future  state  is 
necessary  in  order  to  recompense  man  for  "  the  ills 
which  flesh  is  heir  to."  f  The  wicked  so  often  during 
this  life  seem  to  triumph  over  the  righteous  that,  it  is 
claimed,  Eternal  Justice  must  recompense  the  latter  in 
the  future  world.  The  validity  of  this  argument,  of 
course,  depends  upon  whether  there  is  a  Moral  Gov- 
ernor of  the  Universe,  and  to  us  who  believe  this  to  be 
a  fact,  but  only  to  us,  does  the  argument  appeal. 

Thirdly,  belief  in  immortality  is  said  to  be  a  direct 
intuition,  a  natural  dictate  of  the  Soul ;  and  the  Soul, 
it  is  urged,  is  its  own  proper  witness  on  this  subject. 
Thus,  the  late  W.  K.  Greg  says :  "  The  truth  we  believe 
to  be  that  a  future  existence  is  and  must  be  a  matter 
of  information  or  intuition,  and  not  of  inference.  The 
intellect  may  imagine  it,  but  could  never  have  dis- 
covered  it,  and  can   never  prove  it ;    the  Soul  must 


*  "  The  Idea  of  God,"  p.  66. 

f  Canon  Liddon's  Sermon  on   "Immortality,"   University  Ser- 
mons, first  series,  No.  V. 


378  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

have  revealed  it ;  must,  and  does,  perpetually  reveal  it. 
It  is  a  matter  which  comes  properly  within  the  cogni- 
zance of  the  Soul — of  that  Spiritual  Sense,  to  which 
on  such  topics  we  look  for  information,  as  we  look  to 
our  bodily  senses  for  information  touching  the  things 
of  the  earth,  things  which  lie  within  their  province. 
We  never  dream  of  doubting  what  they  tell  us  of  the 
external  world,  though  a  Berkeley  should  show  us  that 
their  teaching  is  at  variance  with  or  indefensible  by 
logic.  We  therefore  at  once  cut  the  Gordian  knot  by 
conceding  to  the  Soul  the  privilege  of  instructing  us  as 
to  the  things  of  itself — we  apply  to  the  Spiritual  Sense 
for  information  on  spiritual  things.  This  appears  to 
me,"  he  adds,  "  the  only  foundation  on  which  the  be- 
lief in  a  future  life  can  legitimately  rest,  to  those  who 
do  not  accept  a  miraculous  external  revelation  "  (as  Mr. 
Greg  himself  did  not).  "  It  is  a  belief  anterior  to  reason- 
ing, independent  of  reasoning,  unprovable  by  reason- 
ing ;  and  yet,  as  no  logic  can  demonstrate  its  unsound- 
ness, or  can  bring  more  than  negative  evidence  to  op- 
pose it,  I  can  hold  it  with  a  simplicity,  a  tenacity,  an 
undoubting  faith,  which  is  never  granted  to  the  con- 
clusions of  the  understanding."  * 

But,  of  course,  the  force  of  this  argument  depends 
upon  whether  there  is  a  soul  to  bear  such  witness,  for, 
as  Mr.  Greg  frankly  admits,  "  to  the  man  who  disbe- 
lieves the  SouPs  existence  "  this  line  of  argument  "  will 
appear  unwarrantable  and  illogical."  Now,  the  exist- 
ence of  something  in  man  distinct  from  physical  and 
chemical  forces  is  freely  admitted  by  even  Mr.  Spencer, 
Profs.  Tyndall  and  Huxley,  and  other  eminent  skeptics. 

*  Greg's  "  Creed  of  Christendom,"  pp.  373,  374 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  379 

Modern  Physiology  has  been  utterly  unable  to  write 
Mind  in  terms  of  Matter,  to  translate  Thought,  Con- 
sciousness, Emotion,  Will,  into  material  phenomena  or 
products  of  matter.  So  far  from  this  being  true,  we  are 
told  by  Mr.  Spencer  that  "  were  we  compelled  to  choose 
between  the  alternatives  of  translating  mental  phe- 
nomena into  physical  phenomena,  or  of  translating 
physical  phenomena  into  mental  phenomena,  the  latter 
alternative  would  seem  to  be  the  more  acceptable  of 
the  two."  *  Dr.  Romanes,  in  his  "  Mental  Evolution 
of  Animals"  (chapters  iii  and  iv),  maintains  that  there 
is  a  "  Physical  Basis  of  Mind,"  but  he  explains  that  by 
this  he  simply  means  that  "  every  psychical  change  of 
which  we  have  any  experience  is  invariably  associated 
with  a  definite  physical  change."  This  was  also  affirmed 
by  Prof.  Tyndall  in  his  celebrated  u  Belfast  Address," 
and  has  been  frequently  affirmed  by  Prof.  Huxley  and 
others,  and  this  is  all  that  Modern  Physiology  has  been 
able  to  prove  ;  it  has  not  by  any  means  been  able  to 
translate  mental  phenomena  into  physical  phenomena ; 
it  is  just  as  true  as  in  days  of  yore  that  to  talk  of  a 
square  thought,  a  round  thought,  a  hexagonal  thought, 
a  hard  thought,  a  soft  thought,  etc.,  is  literally  non- 
sense. "  Physiologists,"  says  Dr.  Le  Conte,  "  have 
proved  in  every  act  of  perception,  first  a  physical 
change  in  the  sense-organ,  then  a  vibratory  thrill  along 
the  nerve-fiber,  and  a  resulting  physical  change  in  the 
brain  ;  and  in  every  act  of  volition  a  return  vibratory 
thrill  along  the  nerve  from  the  brain  to  the  muscle, 
and  even  the  velocity  of  transmission  of  this  vibratory 
thrill  has  been   measured  and  found  to  be  only  one 


*  Spencer's  "  Principles  of  Psychology,"  vol.  i,  p.  159. 
18 


380  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

hundred  feet  per  second.  They  have  also  established 
the  existence  of  chemical  and  molecular  changes  in  the 
brain  corresponding  to  changes  of  mental  states,  and 
with  great  probability  an  exact  quantitative  relation  be- 
tween these  changes  of  the  brain  and  the  corresponding 
changes  of  mind.  In  the  near  future  they  may  do  more ; 
they  may  localize  all  the  different  faculties  and  powers 
of  the  mind  in  different  parts  of  the  brain,  each  in  its 
several  place,  and  thus  lay  the  foundations  of  a  truly 
scientific  Phrenology.* 

"In  the  far-distant  future  we  may  do  even  much 
more;  we  may  connect  each  kind  of  mental  change 
with  a  different  and  distinctive  kind  of  molecular  brain 
change.  We  may  find,  for  example,  as  has  been  hu- 
morously remarked  (by  Tyndall),  a  right-handed  rota- 
tion of  atoms  associated  with  love,  and  a  left-handed 
rotation  of  atoms  associated  with  hate,  or  a  gentle  side- 
ways oscillation  associated  with  consciousness,  and  a 
vertical  pounding  associated  with  will.  We  may  do  all 
this  and  much  more.  We  have  thus  (triumphantly  ex- 
claims the  Materialist)  completely  identified  mental 
changes  with  brain  changes — spirit  with  matter. 
Thought  and  emotion,  will  and  consciousness,  become 
products  of  the  brain  in  the  same  sense  that  bile  is  a 
product  of  the  liver,  or  urine  the  product  of  the  kid- 
neys." 

The  answer  to  all  this  is  plain.  The  materialist  mis- 
takes association  for  causation.  There  is  just  about  as 
much  reason  in  this  assumption  as  there  would  be  in 
the  supposition  that  the  cock's  crow,  which  invariably 


*  See  "  Popular  Science  Monthly  "  for  October,  1889,  article  by 
Dr.  Starr  on  "  The  Old  and  the  New  Phrenology." 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  381 

accompanies  the  day-dawn,  is  the  cause  of  the  dawn ! 
"  Molecular  motion  and  chemical  change,  on  the  one 
hand,''  continues  Prof.  Le  Conte,  "  sensation  and  con- 
sciousness on  the  other ;  the  two  sets  of  phenomena  be- 
long to  different  orders,  different  planes — planes  so  dif- 
ferent that  it  is  impossible  to  construe  the  one  in  terms 
of  the  other.  This  inability  is  not  the  result  of  our  im- 
perfect knowledge,  but  of  the  fundamental  difference 
of  the  phenomena.  It  is  not  one  which  will  disappear 
with  the  advance  of  science,  as  many  seem  to  think,  but 
is  for  us  an  eternal  impossibility.  Suppose  an  infinite- 
ly perfect  human  knowledge — infinite  in  degree  but  hu- 
man in  kind ;  suppose  an  absolutely  perfect  science — 
a  science  which  shall  have  so  completely  subdued  its 
whole  domain,  and  reduced  it  to  such  perfect  simplici- 
ty, that  the  whole  cosmos  (universe)  is  expressed  in  a 
single  mathematical  formula — a  formula  which,  worked 
out  with  plus  signs,  shall  give  every  phenomenon  which 
shall  ever  occur  in  the  future,  and  with  minus  signs 
every  event  which  has  ever  occurred  in  the  past  history 
of  the  cosmos.  Surely  this  is  an  infinitely  perfect  sci- 
ence, an  absolutely  unattainable  ideal.  Yet  even  to 
such  a  science  the  relation  of  molecular  motion  on  the 
one  hand,  to  sensation,  consciousness,  will,  thought,  and 
emotion  on  the  other,  would  still  be  as  great  a  mystery 
as  ever.  Like  the  essential  nature  of  matter  and  the 
ultimate  cause  of  force,  this  relation  lies  beyond  the 
realm  of  Science."  Then,  after  answering  a  material- 
ist's attempt  to  refute  the  above  argument,  Prof.  Le 
Conte  concludes :  "  I  repeat,  therefore,  with  still  more 
confidence,  that  the  two  series  of  phenomena,  the  phys- 
iological and  the  psychological,  though  invariably  asso- 
ciated with  each  other,  term  for  term,  can  not  by  any 


382  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

effort  of  the  imagination  be  construed  the  one  in  the 
terms  of  the  other,  or  explained  the  one  by  the  other. 
They  can  not,  therefore,  be  imagined  to  be  correlated 
or  mutually  convertible  as  are  the  different  forms  of 
physical  and  chemical  force.  Nor  can  they  be  imag- 
ined to  stand  in  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  we  use  these  terms  when  we  speak 
of  lower  forces  and  phenomena,  where  cause  and  effect 
express  only  change  from  one  form  of  motion  to  an- 
other." * 

The  great  importance  of  this  demonstration  of  the 
radically  distinct  nature  of  mind  and  body,  or  of  men- 
tal and  physical  phenomena,  it  seems  to  me,  can  not  be 
overestimated.  It  is  generally  considered  only  "  nega- 
tive evidence  "  in  favor  of  immortality,  but  I  think  it 
is  quite  positive  ;  for,  granting  that  sensation,  conscious- 
ness, will,  thought,  emotion — i.  e.,  mental  phenomena 
— the  essential  constituents  of  mind — are  immaterial 
entities,  we  may  proceed  at  once  to  argue,  with  Bishop 
Butler, f  that  death  can  not  affect  these,  since  it  affects 
only  material  things,  such  as  flesh,  skin,  bones,  etc.  Of 
course,  it  may  be  urged  that  the  body — the  brain  espe- 
cially— though  it  be  but  the  organ  or  instrument  of  the 
mind,  is  yet  necessary  to  the  mind's  activity,  just  as  the 
piano  is  necessary  to  the  production  of  music  by  the 
musician.  To  which  it  may  be  replied  :  While  this  is 
true  in  this  material  world,  we  have  no  right  to  assume 
that  it  is  true  in  "  the  unseen  universe."  On  the  con- 
trary, the  action  of  the  spirit  in  that  sphere  might  be 
impossible  if  it  were  united  to  a  material  form  such  as 

*  "  Princeton  Review,"  November,  1878,  pp.  789-792. 
f  "  Analogy,"  Part  I,  chap.  i. 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  383 

we  know  it.  But,  however  this  may  be,  it  is  a  grand 
triumph  for  Theology  to  have  a  scientific  demonstration 
of  the  fact  that  man  is  something  else  than  a  bundle  of 
matter  and  material  forces. 

We  come,  now,  to  the  evidence  which  Evolution 
specially  contributes  to  this  important  subject,  and  to 
my  mind  it  is  quite  satisfactory. 

According  to  Evolution,  there  has  been  going  on 
from  the  beginning  a  twofold  "development,  viz.,  a  de- 
velopment of  material  forms  and  a  development  of 
immaterial  forces.  The  first  has  resulted  in  the  human 
frame,  which  is  a  completion  of  the  evolutionary  move- 
ment from  a  physical  point  of  view.  And  it  may  be 
remarked,  by  the  way,  that  the  popular  idea  that,  if 
Evolution  is  true,  man  should  develop  into  a  higher 
animal  is,  on  Evolution-principles,  absurd,  since,  by  the 
very  supposition  man  is  the  realized  ideal  of  the  process 
of  development.  "  Upon  the  Darwinian  theory,5'  says 
Prof.  Fiske,  "  it  is  impossible  that  any  creature  zoologi- 
cally distinct  from  man,  and  superior  to  him,  should 
ever  at  any  future  time  exist  upon  the  earth.  "  Accord- 
ing to  Darwinism,  the  creation  of  man  is  still  the  goal 
towarct  which  Nature  tends  from  the  beginning."  * 

Side  by  side,  and,  indeed,  as  the  moving  cause  of 
this  physical  development,  there  has  been  an  evolution 
of  Force.  The  first  form  of  Force  which  manifested 
itself  was  what  we  call  "  gravity" — the  force  by  which 
the  original  chaotic  mass  or  nebula  was  gradually  organ- 
ized into  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  Almost  contem- 
poraneously, but  one  step  above  this  manifestation  of 
force,  appeared  what  we   call  u  chemical  affinity,"   in 


*  « 


Destiny  of  Man,"  p.  31. 


3S4  EVOLUTION   OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  production  of  compounds,  water,  etc.  This  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  still  higher  development  of  Force,  viz.,  Life, 
which  appeared  first  in  plants  and  then  in  animals. 
This  was  succeeded  by  a  still  higher  manifestation  of 
Force  in  the  mind  or  anima  of  the  lower  animals,  and 
this  slowly  developed  into  the  self-conscious  spirit  of 
Man. 

Thus,  there  is  profound  truth  in  a  certain  philoso- 
pher's assertion,  "  Mind  sleeps  in  the  plant,  dreams  in 
the  animal,  and  awakes  in  Man."  In  Man  it  becomes 
conscious  of  itself  and  capable  of  independent  existence. 
This  process  of  spiritual  evolution  has  been  so  well 
wrought  out  by  Prof.  Le  Conte,  and  it  is  so  necessary 
that  it  should  be  clearly  understood,  that  I  shall  quote 
without  apology  his  entire  exposition.  "  In  the  begin- 
ning," he  says,  "the  Divine  Spirit,  brooding  upon 
primal  chaos,  energized  dead,  inert  Nature,  communi- 
cating an  influence,  an  energy,  a  life,  which  became 
through  all  time  the  force  of  evolution  of  the  comos  (uni- 
verse). This  all-pervading  divine  energy,  which  Science 
calls  force,  was  at  first  wholly  and  equally  diffused  ;  but 
through  all  time  individuated  (divided  up)  itself  more 
and  more  under  favoring  conditions  (I  speak  the  lan- 
guage of  Science),  and  thus  assumed  higher  and  more 
special  forms,  until  finally,  by  completed  individuation, 
it  reached  the  condition  of  immortal  Spirit — the  image 
of  God,  whence  it  originally  came.  Such  is  a  con- 
densed statement  of  the  process.  Now  the  steps  in 
more  detail : 

"1.  In  its  original  diffused,  generalized,  unindivid- 
uated  condition  we  call  this  pervading  divine  energy 
physical  and  chemical  forces,  for  these  are  the  most  uni- 
versal, the  lowest  and  evidently  the  earliest  form  of 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  385 

force.  This  is  the  general  fund,  the  bank  from  which 
all  other  forms  are  drawn. 

"  2.  A  portion  of  this  diffused  force,  a  spark  of  this 
divine  energy,  drawn  from  the  common  fund,  partially 
and  imperfectly  individuates  itself  under  the  favoring 
condition  of  organization,  attains  new  powers  and  prop- 
erties, viz.,  assimilation,  and  thus  becomes  the  vital 
force  of  plants  or  non-sentient  living  beings. 

"  In  this  case,  observe,  even  the  material  organic  in- 
dividuality is  not  yet  complete,  much  less  the  kinetic 
or  force  individuality. 

"  3.  A  portion  of  this  already  partially  individuated 
energy  (for  animals  draw  their  vital  force  from  planets) 
becomes  more  highly  individuated  under  conditions  of 
higher  organization,  especially  the  presence  of  a  nervous 
system,  attains  in  addition  still  higher  new  properties 
and  powers,  viz.,  sensation,  consciousness,  will,  intelli- 
gence— and  thus  becomes  the  sentient  principle — the 
anima — the  soul  of  animals. 

"4.  In  man  the  progressive  individuation  of  forces 
becomes  at  last  complete.  Force  in  him  becomes  a 
complete,  separate,  independent  entity ;  with  new  and 
far  more  wonderful  powers  and  properties  added ;  not 
only  consciousness  but  self-consciousness ;  not  only  will, 
but  also  free,  self -determining  will :  not  only  intelli- 
gence,  but  also  reason  and  moral  sense  ;  not  only  a  mere 
semblance  of,  but  a  true  personality.  This  completed 
kinetic  (force)  individuality  is  what  we  call  the  spirit 
of  man.  Self -consciousness,  moral  sense,  and  reason  to 
discern  good  and  evil,  and  free-will  to  choose  the  right  or 
wrong,  in  a  word  personality — the  possession  of  these 
makes  him  the  image  of  God. 

"  But  why  immortal  ?     I  answer,  because  indiviolu- 


386  EVOLUTION-  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

ation  is  complete  ;  because  this  portion  of  force  is  sepa- 
rated completely  from  the  general  fund  of  material 
forces  as  a  distinct  entity  capable  of  independent  exist- 
ence. In  plants  force-individuation  is  very  imperfect ; 
therefore,  when  the  condition  of  this  partial  individua- 
tion— viz.,  organization — -is  removed  by  death,  the  indi- 
viduation also  is  destroyed,  and  the  forces  are  again 
merged  into  the  common  fund  of  natural  forces.  In 
animals  the  individuation  of  resident  forces  is  far 
greater ;  it  may  even  simulate  in  the  higher  forms  a 
true  individuality  (spirit) ;  but  only  simulates,  for,  re- 
move the  conditions  of  individuation  by  death  of  the 
material  organism,  and  the  nearly  completed  individua- 
tion of  resident  forces  is  destroyed,  and  these  again 
merge  back  into  the  common  fund  of  natural  forces. 
But  if  once  the  individuation  be  completed  to  actual 
separation,  if  once  the  resident  force  attains  spiritual 
individuality  or  personality,  it  then  becomes  a  separate 
entity  capable  of  independent  life.  Destroy,  now,  the 
original  conditions  of  its  individuation — viz.,  organic 
life — and  the  already  individualized  and  separate  force 
entity  (spirit)  is  not  again  refunded. 

"  In  so  difficult  and  intangible  a  subject  I  can  make 
myself  clear  only  by  several  material  illustrations,  each 
perhaps  imperfect,  but  all  combining  to  place  the  sub- 
ject in  a  clearer  light.  Let  the  dead  level  of  unindividu- 
ated,  physical  and  chemical  forces  of  Nature  be  sepa- 
rated by  a  water  surface  A  B. 

o  o 


"  In  this  watery  mass  tending  ever  to  perfect  level, 
let  '  gravity '  be  abolished  and  only  cohesio7i  remain  as 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  387 

the  refunding  force,  or  the  tendency  to  return  to  a  dead 
level.  Now,  suppose  some  force  to  pull  upward  against 
cohesion,  a  small  portion  of  the  watery  mass  above  the 
common  level,  to  form,  as  it  were,  a  drop,  as  shown  in 
the  figure  above.  Then,  if  the  upward-acting,  drop- 
forming  force  suffice  only  to  form  a  commencing  drop, 
a  mammilla  a  a',  then  we  have  the  condition  of  force 
as  it  exists  in  plants.  If  the  upward-pulling,  individu- 
ating force  be  greater,  so  that  we  have  the  semblance  of 
a  drop,  though  not  a  complete  drop — a  nipple-shaped 
protuberance  b,  or  even  a  round  button  connected  by  a 
neck  V — then  we  have  a  representation  of  the  condition 
of  force  as  the  sentient  principle  or  anima  of  animals. 
If,  lastly,  the  drop  be  completed  and  separated,  we  have 
the  condition  of  force  as  the  spirit  of  man,  separated  yet 
seemingly  connected,  as  shown  by  the  dotted  lines  in  c. 
Now,  it  is  evident  that  in  a  a'  and  in  b  b\  if  we  remove 
the  lifting  or  individuating  force,  cohesion  prevails  and 
the  commencing  or  even  the  nearly  completed  drop  is 
refunded.  But  in  c  remove  the  original  lifting  or  indi- 
viduating force,  and  there  is  no  longer  any  tendency  to 
return,  for  the  cohesive  ligature  is  already  severed. 
The  drop  is  a  separate  entity,  totus  teres  atque  rotundas 
(completely  smooth  and  round),  and  therefore  capable  of 
independent  existence.  Even  the  semblance  of  cohesive 
connection,  represented  by  the  dotted  lines  in  c,  is  sev- 
ered by  death  in  c' . 

"  To  illustrate  again  :  The  vital  principle  of  plants 
and  the  sentient  principle  or  anima  of  animals  are 
spirit  in  embryo,  inclosed  and  fast  asleep  in  the  womb 
of  Nature — in  the  latter  case,  indeed,  already  quickened 
but  not  yet  viable. 

"  In  man  spirit  comes  to  birth,  emerges  into  new  and 


388  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

higher  conditions,  becomes  capable  of  independent  life, 
though  still  drawing  nourishment  from  his  nursing 
mother,  Nature.  Death  only  weans  us.  Thus,  as  the 
organic  embryo  by  birth  comes  to  independent  temporal 
life  in  the  lower  plane  of  matter,  so  the  spiritual  em- 
bryo, by  birth  in  man,  comes  to  independent  eternal  life 
on  the  higher  plane  of  spirit.  The  mature  embryo  how 
like  the  new-horn  !  The  higher  animals  how  like  to  man  ! 
Yet  in  both  cases  there  is  an  immense  difference  ;  in 
both  cases  there  is  a  sudden  entrance  on  an  entirely  new 
and  higher  plane  of  existence — a  sudden  entrance  into 
a  new  world  ;  in  both  cases  there  is  a  sudden  appearance 
of  a  new  creature  with  entirely  different  capacities — a 
passing  out  of  an  old  world  and  a  waking  up  in  a  new 
and  higher.     Man,  alone,  is  the  child  of  God."  * 

Upon  this  important  quotation  I  would  make  two 
remarks : 

First,  let  it  be  remembered  that  Prof.  Le  Conte  is 
not  here  sketching  an  imaginary  process.  All  evolu- 
tionists, and  indeed  philosophers  of  all  schools,  believe 
that  "gravity  "  or  physical  force  was  the  first  form  of 
force  that  appeared,  and  that  there  has  been  a  gradual 
development  or  production  of  higher  and  higher  forces 
until  the  human  mind — the  highest  of  all  forces — ap- 
peared.    Then — 

Secondly,  Prof.  Le  Conte  removes  the  objection  to  a 
belief  in  immortality  which  the  doctrine  of  the  "  Corre- 
lation of  Forces  "  suggests.  According  to  this  doctrine, 
all  the  so-called  "natural  forces"  are  simply  different 
sides,  different  manifestations  of  one  and  the  same  thing. 

Heat,  light,  electricity,  magnetism,  chemical  affinity, 

*  "  Princeton  Review  "  for  November,  1878,  pp.  795-798. 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  389 

mechanical,  vital  and  (some  claim)  mental  forces  are 
transmutable  into  each  other  back  and  forth  ;  and  this 
is  what  Prof.  Le  Conte  means  when  he  speaks  of  the 
partially  individuated  forces  being  returned  at  the  death 
of  the  organism  to  the  common  fund  from  which  they 
were  originally  drawn.  But,  according .  to  his  theory, 
mental  force  is  so  highly  developed  as  to  be  completely 
separated  from  the  lower  forces,  and  therefore  capable 
of  independent,  unending  existence.  It  may  be  said 
that  his  assertion  that  mental  force  is  thus  perfectly  indi- 
viduated is  a  begging  of  the  question,  since  this  is  the 
very  point  to  be  proved.  But  no,  it  is  not  a  begging  of 
the  question,  since  he  bases  his  conclusion  upon  the  ac- 
knowledged and  indisputable  fact  that  there  is  and  has 
been  from  the  beginning  an  elevation,  a  development  of 
forces  ;  and  he  merely  urges  that  this  elevation  had  only 
to  continue  long  enough  in  order  to  attain  the  height 
he  claims  it  has.  Moreover,  self-consciousness  confirms 
his  allegation  that  kinetic  or  force-evolution  is  complete, 
and  hence  his  theory  has  the  best  sort  of  support. 

Prof.  Fiske  seems  to  share  this  view,  or  to  hold  one 
essentially  like  it.  "  The  question,"  he  says,  "  is  reduced 
to  this  :  Are  man's  highest  spiritual  qualities  into  the 
production  of  which  all  creative  energy  has  gone,  to  dis- 
appear with  the  rest  ?  Has  all  this  work  been  done  for 
nothing?  Is  it  all  ephemeral,  all  a  bubble  that  bursts, 
a  vision  that  fades?  Are  we  to  regard  the  Creator's 
wrork  as  like  that  of  a  child,  who  builds  houses  out  of 
blocks,  just  for  the  pleasure  of  knocking  them  down  ? 
I  can  see  no  good  reason  for  believing  any  such  thing. 
On  such  a  view  the  riddle  of  the  universe  becomes  a 
riddle  without  a  meaning.  .  .  . 

"  For  my  own  part,  therefore,  I  believe  in  the  im- 


390  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

mortality  of  the  soul,  not  in  the  sense  in  which  I  accept 
the  demonstrable  truths  of  science,  but  as  a  supreme 
act  of  faith  in  the  reasonableness  of  God's  works.  .  .  . 
The  greatest  philosopher  of  modern  times,"  he  adds 
(and  this  is  the  point  I  would  emphasize),  "  the  master 
and  teacher  of  all  who  shall  study  the  process  of  evolu- 
tion for  many  a  day  to  come,  holds  that  consciousness 
is  not  the  product  of  a  collocation  of  material  particles, 
but  is  in  the  deepest  sense  a  divine  effluence.  Accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Spencer,  the  divine  energy  which  is  mani- 
fested throughout  the  knowable  universe  is  the  same 
energy  that  wells  up  in  us  as  consciousness.*  Speaking 
for  myself,"  Prof.  Fiske  concludes,  "  I  can  see  no  in- 
superable difficulty  in  the  notion  that  at  some  period  in 
the  evolution  of  Humanity  this  divine  spark  may  have 
acquired  sufficient  concentration  and  steadiness  to  sur- 
vive the  wreck  of  material  forms  and  endure  forever. 
Such  a  crowning  wonder  seems  to  me  no  more  than 
the  fit  climax  to  a  creative  work  that  has  been  ineffably 
beautiful  and  marvelous  in  all  its  myriad  stages."  f 

The  same  idea  seems  to  have  been  entertained  by 
Mr.  Darwin.  "  Believing  as  I  do,"  he  says,  "  that 
in  the  distant  future  man  will  be  a  far  more  perfect 
creature  than  he  now  is,  it  is  an  intolerable  thought 
that  he  and  all  other  sentient  beings  are  doomed  to 
complete  annihilation  after  such  long-continued,  slow 
progress."  % 

But  apart  from  all  authority  and  all  other  consider- 
ations, he  who  accepts  the  Idealistic  view  of  Nature  set 
forth  in  the  first  chapter  of  this  book,  will  find  little  or 

*  See  Spencer's  "  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,"  p.  839. 
f  "Destiny  of  Man,"  pp.  114-119. 
%  "  Life  and  Letters,"  vol.  i,  p.  282. 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  391 

no  difficulty  in  believing  in  the  immortality  of  the  hu- 
man spirit,  since  Spirit,  according  to  this  view,  is  the 
only  real,  absolute,  and  eternal  substance.  The  great 
Power  which  is  manifested  in  every  throb  of  the  mighty 
rhythmic  life  of  the  universe  is,  we  believe,  spiritual  in 
its  nature.  The  human  spirit  and,  in  fact,  all  things, 
"  live  and  move  and  have  their  being"  in  this  Power; 
the  human  spirit  is  an  "  image,"  a  finite  embodiment,  of 
this  Power,  and  differs  from  all  things  else  in  that  it  is 
StfZf-conscious  and  self-  dependent  now,  and  may  con- 
tinue so  forever ;  while  they  (the  lower  animals,  etc.), 
being  not  so  highly  developed,  living  a  dependent  life 
now,  are  at  death  returned  to  the  source  whence  they 
came,  as  bubbles  on  the  ocean  wave. 

Thus  it  appears  that,  so  far  from  evolution  disprov- 
ing immortality,  as  many  superficial  minds  imagine,  it 
really  affords  the  strongest  argument  in  favor  of  this 
article  of  faith  by  showing  that  the  human  spirit  is 

"  The  one  far-off,  divine  event 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves.1' 

Indeed,  the  popular  idea  that  evolution  destroys  man's 
immortality  by  uniting  him  genetically  with  the  lower 
animals  is  so  superficial  as  not  to  require  refutation, 
were  not  prejudice  and  ignorance  more  potent  than 
even  the  strongest  argument. 

It  would  be  far  more  rational  to  hold,  with  Bishop 
Butler,  that  the  lower  animals  may  themselves  possess 
"  some  modified  form  of  being  "  *  in  the  future  state, 
than  it  would  to  believe  that,  because  all  creatures  are 
related,  all  must  be  destroyed  together ;  and  were  we 

*  Canon  Liddon's  "  University  Sermons,"  first  series,  Sermon  V, 
p.  378 ;  "  Butler's  Analogy,"  chap.  i. 


392  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

reduced  to  such  an  alternative  we  should  not  long  hesi- 
tate to  accept  Butler's  view.  Again  :  Mr.  Darwin  him- 
self long  ago  urged  that  if  the  development  of  the 
individual  from  a  little  germ  (and  this  happens  in  every 
case)  does  not  conflict  with  the  existence  and  immor- 
tality of  the  human  soul,  the  development  of  the  race 
does  not.*  Indeed,  as  another  truly  observes,  "  It  is 
more  remarkable  that  immortality  should  emerge  in  the 
few  months  of  the  growth  of  an  individual  in  the 
uterus  than  that  it  should  appear  in  the  course  of  the 
dim  ages  of  a  vast  series  of  successive  species."  f  And 
when  we  once  see  that  individual  evolution  does  not 
necessarily  destroy  either  the  existence  or  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  we  shall  readily  conclude  that  racial 
evolution  does  not,  but  that,  in  the  words  of  Prof. 
Fiske,  again,  "  Darwinism  places  Humanity  upon  a 
higher  pinnacle  than  ever  before.  The  future  is  lighted 
for  us  with  the  radiant  colors  of  hope.  Strife  and  sor- 
row shall  disappear.  Peace  and  love  shall  reign  su- 
preme. The  dream  of  poets,  the  lesson  of  priest  and 
prophet,  the  inspiration  of  the  great  musician,  is  con- 
firmed in  the  light  of  modern  knowledge ;  and,  as  we 
gird  ourselves  for  the  work  of  life,  we  may  look  for- 
ward to  the  time  when  in  the  truest  sense  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world  shall  become  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and 
he  shall  reign  for  ever  and  ever,  king  of  kings  and  lord 
of  lords." 

Note. — The  supreme  importance  of  the  question  discussed  in 
this  chapter  leads  me  to  urge  the  reader  to  consult  all  the  books  re- 
ferred to.    If  he  does  not  possess  them,  he  should  buy  or  borrow 

*  "  Descent  of  Man,"  one  vol.  edition,  p.  613. 
f  "  A  Symposium  on  Christianity  and   Evolution,"  p.  115,  by 
Dr.  Matheson,  etc.  (Whittaker,  1887). 


EVOLUTION  AND  IMMORTALITY.  393 

them,  and  in  addition  he  might  profitably  consult  the  following 
works :  Prof.  Alexander  Winehell's  "  Science  and  Religion,"  passim  ; 
"  A  Symposism  on  Immortality,"  by  Canon  Row,  etc.  (Whittaker, 
1885);  Dr.  Martineau's  -'Study  of  Religion,"  Book  IV;  Prof.' 
Fiske's  "  Unseen  World,"  Essay  I  (review  of  "  The  Unseen  Uni- 
verse," which  should  also  be  specially  consulted);  Drummond's 
"  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World  "  ;  chapters  on  "  Death  "  and 
"  Eternal  Life  "—a  not  very  satisfactory  though  a  suggestive  book. 


CHAPTEK  X. 

THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  FUTURE. 

Let  no  one  imagine  from  the  title  of  this  chapter 
that  the  author  claims  any  special  powers  of  the  prophet : 
far  from  it!  But  as  an  evolutionist,  who  considers 
the  present  state  of  things  ecclesiastical  a  development 
from  a  lower  state,  and  as  an  observer  of  the  tendencies 
of  the  present  theological  and  ecclesiastical  world,  he 
may,  without  claiming  the  vision  of  seer  or  prophet, 
indicate  the  probable  stage  of  evolution  upon  which  we 
are  about  to  enter. 

The  thoughtful  reader,  as  he  has  noted  the  rise  and 
fall  of  the  theological  idols,  the  history  of  which  is 
briefly  sketched  in  this  volume,  has  doubtless  asked 
more  than  once,  And  what  shall  be  the  end  thereof  ? 
And  perhaps  he  has  often  been  tempted  to  conclude 
either  that  this  question  is  unanswerable  or  that  the  end 
is  to  be — nothing.  If  so,  he  may  be  reassured  by  these 
words  of  Mr.  Spencer :  "  Though  Ecclesiastical  Institu- 
tions hold  less  important  places  in  higher  societies  than 
in  lower  societies,  we  must  not  infer  that  they  will  here- 
after wholly  disappear.  If  in  time  to  come  there  re- 
main functions  to  be  fulfilled  in  any  way  analogous  to 
their  present  functions,  we  must  conclude  that  they  will 
survive  under  some  one  form  or  other."     The  question, 


THE   CHURCH  OF  THE  FUTURE.  395 

then,  is,  "  Under  what  form  ? "  Mr.  Spencer  thinks 
it  will  be  manifold.  State  churches,  in  his  opinion, 
will  gradually  disappear,  and  sects  will  be  increased. 
"And  along  with  the  acquirement  of  complete  auton- 
omy by  each  religious  body,  there  is  likely  to  be  a  com- 
plete loss  of  the  sacerdotal  character  by  any  one  who 
plays  the  part  of  minister."  But,  although  the  priest 
is  destined  to  disappear,  the  preacher  and  pastor  will 
not. 

"  There  will  ever  be  a  sphere,"  says  Mr.  Spencer, 
"for  those  who  are  able  to  impress  their  hearers  with  a 
due  sense  of  the  Mystery  in  which  the  origin  and  mean- 
ing of  the  universe  are  shrouded."  *  In  these  degen- 
erate days,  when  the  clergyman  is  in  many  quarters 
considered  a  sort  of  respectable  beggar,  it  is  quite  com- 
forting to  him  to  be  assured,  by  one  of  the  greatest  phi- 
losophers, evolutionists,  and  skeptics  of  the  age,  that  he 
is  not  a  worthless  thing  which  is  destined  to  be  thrown 
overboard  as  the  ship  of  progress  moves  over  the  ocean 
of  time.  "  The  Church  of  the  future  "  probably  can 
not  be  better  described  than  by  sketching  the  clergy- 
man of  the  future. 

There  are  two  radically  different  ideas  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  clerical  office  now  prevailing,  and  these  find 
expression  in  an  Episcopal  "charge"  delivered  in  June, 
1S89,  and  in  an  editorial  in  "The  Christian  Union" 
(Rev.  Lyman  Abbott,  D.  D.,  editor)  for  June  20,  1889. 
"While  the  (Protestant  Episcopal)  Bishop  of  Rhode  Isl- 
and, Dr.  Clark,  was  expounding  to  his  clergy,  in  the 
aforementioned  "  charge,"  one  idea  of  preaching,  the 
editor  of  "  The  Christian  Union  "  was  formulating  ex- 


*  "  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,"  pp.  823-825. 


396  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

actly  the  opposite  idea,  and  I  can  not  do  better  than  to 
quote  from  these  eminent  divines. 

"  In  a  general  way,"  said  Bishop  Clark,  "  it  may  be 
remarked  that  nothing  is  to  be  regarded  as  suitable  for 
the  pulpit  that  has  not  an  ethical  side.  Social  and  po- 
litical opinions,  especially  where  there  exists  a  divided 
public  opinion,  should  be  excluded  from  the  sanctuary, 
unless  they  involve  some  clearly  marked  moral  issue. 

"  There  are  other  subjects  which  are  more  likely  to 
find  their  way  into  our  pulpits,  that  should  not  be  made 
too  conspicuous,  and  never  allowed  to  usurp  the  place 
of  those  truths  which  pertain  directly  to  the  salvation 
of  sinful  man.  Elaborate  Biblical  criticism,  disquisition 
of  doubtful  and  disputed  texts,  enlarging  upon  the  cavils 
of  unbelievers  and  heretics,  discussions  of  abstract  philo- 
sophical questions,  dwelling  at  length  upon  the  various 
theories  of  inspiration  and  miracle  and  the  supernatural 
in  general,  attempts  to  solve  the  hidden  mysteries  of 
the  Atonement,  to  philosophize  upon  the  nature  and 
contents  of  the  Holy  Sacraments,  the  new  birth  and  the 
workings  of  the  Spirit,  the  sovereignty  of  God  and  the 
freedom  of  men,  beyond  the  obvious  limits  indicated  in 
the  Scriptures — in  regard  to  all  such  matters  it  becomes 
us  to  exercise  the  greatest  caution  and  reticence."  Thus 
all  the  questions  that  agitate  thinking  minds  of  all 
classes  are  excluded  from  pulpit  discussion.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  social  and  political  problems,  which  inter- 
est the  laborer  and  employer  ;  on  the  other,  critical,  sci- 
entific, and  philosophic  questions,  which  interest  the 
educated — all  must  be  ignored,  or  merely  glanced  at  by 
the  way.  On  the  contrary,  Dr.  Abbott  tells  us  that 
"the  ancient  minister  was  almost  purely  theological. 
In  his  department  he  was  an  expert,  and  to  his  depart- 


THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  FUTURE.  397 

ment  he  generally  confined  himself.    He  dealt  with  one 
section  of  thought  and  life.     The  modern  minister  is 
not  permitted — if  he  is  a  true  man  he  does  not  permit 
himself — this  limitation.     Whatever  concerns  the  moral 
life   of  his  people   concerns  him.     Temperance,   soci- 
ology,  the   industrial   problems,   education ;   the  rela- 
tion of  religion  to  the  state;  summer  vacations,  and 
how  to  get  the  good  out  of  them  ;  Darwinism  ;  the  last 
catastrophe,  and  its  moral  lessons ;  the  centennial  and 
its  significance ;  the  latest  religious  novel ;  evolution ; 
positivism,  and  its  prophets ;  the  higher  criticism — all 
come  before  him  for  treatment.    He  is  talking  to  a  con- 
gregation in  which  are  men  and  women  who  have  had 
as  good  an  education  as  himself,  who  have  better  li- 
braries, who  have  possibly  nearly  as  much  leisure,  and 
who  do  as  earnest  thinking.     He  is  no  priest  to  tell 
them  ex  cathedra  what  they  ought  to  beiieve.     He  is  a 
brother  student  telling  them  what  he  believes  and  why. 
And  he  speaks  to  men  and  women  who  will  believe 
nothing,  in  morals,  politics,  or  religion,  unless  he  shows 
them  a  reason   for  his  convictions.     The   books   and 
magazines  accumulate  on  his  table,  and  he  despairs  ever 
to  overtake  the  rapid  work  of  modern  thought ;  or,  in 
his  poverty,  and  far  from  public  libraries,  he  gets  only 
the  echoes  of  the  books  and  magazines  in  daily  news- 
papers, and  is  in  despair  because  he  must  speak  on  liv- 
ing themes  and  thoughts,  himself  uninformed  as  to  the 
latest  utterances  of  the  greatest  thinkers.     The  ancient 
preacher  pulled  a  leisurely  stroke  on  a  placid  lake ;  the 
modern  preacher  pulls  an  oar  upon  a  tempestuous  cur- 
rent, and  has  all  he  can  do  to  give  his  boat  movement 
enough  to  secure  for  it  steerage-way.     Nor  is  his  task 
lightened  when   a  preacher  of  pious   platitudes  bids 


398  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

him  leave  these  themes  alone  and  '  preach  the  Gospel.' 
His  Master  has  told  him  to  '  teach  all  things  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you ' ;  and,  to  apply  Christ's 
commands  to  all  the  complicated  problems  of  modern 
civilization,  he  must  study  those  problems,  and  know 
the  latest  and  best  interpretations  of  the  word  duty 
when  applied  to  them.  But  he  no  longer  makes  pas- 
toral calls!  Some  do,  and  some  do  not.  But  those 
who  do  not  are  generally  men  of  executive  and  admin- 
istrative ability,  whose  time  and  thought  are  fully  ab- 
sorbed in  directing  the  energies  of  a  working  church. 
The  minister  may  regard  his  church  as  a  hospital,  a  re- 
treat for  the  lame,  the  halt,  and  the  blind,  and  his  duty 
is  fulfilled  in  visiting  and  nursing  his  sick.  Or  he  may 
regard  his  church  as  an  army,  and  his  first  duty  to  be 
that  of  marshaling  his  forces  and  directing  the  cam- 
paign." It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  from  this  what 
Dr.  Abbott  thinks  the  Church  of  the  Present,  as  well  as 
the  Church  of  the  Future,  ought  to  be  and  will  be.  It 
will  be  an  army  consisting  of  various  divisions  officered 
in  different  ways  and  pursuing  different  lines  of  opera- 
tion, but  all  moving  toward  one  point,  viz.,  the  social, 
intellectual,  moral,  and  religious  elevation  of  the  human 
race.  In  the  words  of  Canon  Fremantle  :  "  The  Church 
has  often  been  presented  to  men  as  if  it  had  no  object 
but  public  worship  and  teaching,  with  some  few  acci- 
dental adjuncts  of  beneficent  action.  It  is  regarded  as 
a  society,  but  a  society  of  which  public  prayer  and 
preaching  are  the  supreme,  if  not  exclusive,  ratio  es- 
sendi  "  (reason  for  its  existence).  "  If  a  further  object  is 
assigned,  it  is  to  prepare  men  for  another  world.  In 
contrast  to  this  limited  view  of  its  functions,  the  Church 
will  be  here"  (in  his  Bampton  Lectures)  "presented  as  the 


THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  FUTURE.  399 

social  state  in  which  the  Spirit  of  Christ  reigns ;  as  em- 
bracing the  general  life  and  society  of  men,  and  identi- 
fying itself  with  these  as  much  as  possible  ;  as  having 
for  its  object  to  imbue  all  human  relations  with  the 
Spirit  of  Christ's  self- renouncing  love,  and  thus  change 
the  world  into  a  kingdom  of  God.'1  *  This  is  the  only 
sort  of  Church  which  will  win  the  allegiance  of  think- 
ing men  and  women  everywhere.  The  clergyman  of 
the  future  will  aim  to  make  his  pulpit  an  educating 
power  and  his  parish  a  social  and  moral  power.  On 
the  one  hand,  he  will  aim  to  meet  the  intellectual  wants 
of  the  educated  who  may  form  a  part  of  his  congrega- 
tion, and  to  this  end  he  will  preach  on  the  scientific, 
philosophic,  literary,  and  other  topics  suggested  by  Dr. 
Abbott,  discussing,  of  course,  their  moral  and  religious 
bearing  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively — that  is  to  say,  he  will 
"preach  Christ  crucified,"  not  according  to  mediaeval 
views,  but  according  to  modern  ideas  and  aim  to  infuse 
the  Christ's  life  and  spirit  into  all  departments  of  ac- 
tivity. On  the  other  hand,  without  "  entering  politics" 
proper,  he  will  consider  the  ethical  aspect  of  every  so- 
cial and  political  question — labor  organizations  and  agi- 
tations, Georgeism,  the  tariff,  etc.,  etc.  In  short,  he 
will  appear  among  the  professional  and  laboring  classes 
as  their  friend  and  brother  who  desires  to  contribute 
his  quota  toward  the  solution  of  the  problems  agitating 
their  minds.  And  as  the  ministers  of  the  various  de- 
nominations meet  on  this  common  platform,  they  will 
gradually  agree  to  disagrea  on  "the  distinctive  feat- 
ures "  of  their  "  Churches."     The  Protestant  will  allow 


*  "  The  World  as  the  Subject  of  Redemption,"  by  Rev.  W.  H. 
Fremantle,  M.  A.,  Canon  of  Canterbury,  England— an  admirable 
book. 


400  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  Koman  Catholic  to  worship  the  God  of  his  fathers 
according  to  that  Liturgy  which  he  deems  most  rational 
and  Scriptural ;  and  the  Romanist  will  not  quarrel  with 
the  Protestant  because  he  can  not  believe  in  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope  or  the  Immaculate  Conception.  May 
we  not  hope  that  brethren  that  are  thus  separated  by 
(apparently)  insurmountable  doctrinal  hedges  may  yet 
be  drawn  very  closely  together  in  their  efforts  to  pro- 
mote the  common  weal  of  their  fellow-men  ?  May  there 
not  be  such  a  union  of  the  Churches  in  the  near  fu- 
ture ?  Only  such  a  union  seems  possible.  As  the 
various  Christian  bodies  are  thus  drawn  together;  as 
they  begin  to  recognize  essential  unity  under  the  mani- 
fold variety  of  doctrine  and  ritual  which  prevails  among 
them,  the  question  will  arise,  What  shall  be  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Christian  Church  and  religion  toward  other 
religions — the  so-called  "  Heathen  Religions  "  ?  For, 
after  all,  Christianity  is  only  one  of  many  religions,  and, 
when  we  are  discussing  the  Church  of  the  Future,  we 
must  not  ignore  the  heathen  religions.  It  is  beginning 
to  be  more  and  more  fully  recognized  that  Christianity 
is  the  fruit  of  which  all  other  religions  are  the  flowers. 
One  of  the  most  striking  instances  of  the  recognition  of 
this  fact  is  that  of  the  Rev.  James  Freeman  Clarke  who, 
in  an  admirable  work  on  this  subject,*  aims  to  show 
that  other  religions — Brahmanism,  Confucianism,  Zoro- 
astrianism,  Buddhism,  Mohammedanism,  etc.,  are  ethnic 
or  national  religions,  while  Christianity  is  the  catholic 
or  universal  religion.  He  points  out  most  clearly  the 
distinctive  features  of  these  religions,  and  shows  that 

*  "  Ten  Great  Religions,"  by  J.  F.  Clarke.    Houghton,  Mifflin  & 
Co.,  1882. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  FUTURE.  401 

Christianity  comprehends  all  these  and  much  more.  It 
embraces  the  deep  spirituality  of  Brahmanism.  ("  God 
is  Spirit,5'  etc.);  the  prudence  and  humanity  of  Bud- 
dhism ;  the  reverence  for  the  family  and  the  state  of 
Confucianism ;  the  conflict  of  light  with  darkness,  of 
right  with  wrong,  of  Zoroastrianism ;  and  the  monothe- 
ism of  Judaism  and  Mohammedanism.  In  short,  he 
shows  that  "  each  of  the  great  ethnic  religions  is  full  on 
one  side,  but  empty  on  the  other,  while  Christianity  is 
full  all  around.  Christianity  is  adapted  to  take  their 
place,  not  because  they  are  false,  but  because  they  are 
true  as  far  as  they  go.  They  know  in  part  and  proph- 
esy in  part ;  but  when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come, 
then  that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away."  * 

Thus  far  I  have  spoken  of  the  Church  from  a  strict- 
ly external  or  ecclesiastical  point  of  view.  I  now  turn 
to  a  consideration  of  the  doctrinal  development  which 
it  is  destined  to  undergo.  Mr.  Spencer  correctly  points 
out  that  the  base  and  center  of  this  development  will 
be  the  idea  of  God.  "  This  one  supernatural  power," 
he  says,  "  has,  by  what  Mr.  Fiske  aptly  calls  deanthro- 
pomorphization,  lost  the  grosser  attributes  of  humanity. 
If  things  are  hereafter  to  follow  the  same  general  course 
as  heretofore,  we  must  infer  that  this  dropping  of  hu- 
man attributes  will  continue."  f  What  will  be  the  re- 
sult ?  Our  ideas  of  God  being  elevated,  the  whole  plane 
of  our  theological  and  religious  thought  will  be  ele- 
vated. 

First,  our  idea  of  Miracle  will  be  changed.  We  will 
not  think  of  it  as  a  contradiction  of  law — as  the  result 


*  Compare  "  Symposium  on  Non-Biblical  Religions,"  by  Farrar, 
etc.  (Whittaker,  1887),  and  Hawers's  "  Light  of  the  Ages." 
f  "  Ecclesiastical  Institutions,"  p.  833  et  seq. 


402  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

of  a  special  intervention  of  the  Divine  Power  altering 
the  course  of  things  He  has  once  established,  but  we 
will  think  of  it  as  only  a  manifestation  of  a  higher  or 
a  hitherto  unrecognized  law. 

Secondly,  our  idea  of  Divine  Justice  will  be  exalted 
and  purified.  We  will  no  longer  teach  that  infinite 
punishment  will  result  from  a  finite  course  of  sin  ;  we 
wriil  no  longer  believe  that  an  innocent  being  will  be 
made  (or  allowed)  to  suffer  in  the  place  of  the  guilty. 
In  short,  our  views  on  all  the  subjects  discussed  in  the 
foregoing  pages  will  be  elevated  and  purified— will  be 
dematerialized  and  more  and  more  spiritualized. 

The  practical  result  of  all  this  will  be  the  realiza- 
tion of  that  ideal  Church  for  which  a  Eobertson  and  a 
Carpenter  sighed — the  ecclesiastical  anathema  will  de- 
scend, not  upon  views  held,  but  upon  life  led,  and  the 
Church  will  "  admit  into  Christian  communion  every 
one  who  desires  to  be  accounted  a  disciple  of  Christ, 
and  humbly  endeavors  to  follow  in  trie  footsteps  of  bis 
Divine  Master."* 

So  shall  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  become  the 
kingdom  of  our  God  and  of  his  Christ,  and  the  Church 
Militant  shall  finally  be  merged  into  the  Church  Tri- 
umphant. 


*  Robertson's  "  Sermons,"  third  series,  Sermon  I ;  Carpenter's 
"  Mental  Physiology,"  last  lines. 


NOTES  TO  SECOND  EDITION. 


Page  166. — Even  if  Justin  did  use  our  Gospels,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  seventy  years  intervened  between  his  day  (140  a.  d.)  and 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (a.  d.  70),  when  St.  Matthew  is  supposed  to 
have  written  the  First  Gospel.  Surely  this  period  was  long  enough 
to  allow  of  several  redactions  of  the  original  apostolic  writings,  and 
the  insertion  of  more  or  less  unhistorical  matter.  At  any  rate,  even 
the  most  radical  critics  do  not  place  the  Fourth  Gospel  itself  later 
than  the  time  of  Justin,  and  I  certainly  believe  that  all  the  Gospels 
existed  prior  to  his  day.  Hence  he  can  not  be  brought  forward  as  a 
witness  against  the  views  advocated  in  these  pages. 

Page  187. — I  call  special  attention  to  this  statement,  for  critics  of 
this  book  have  said  that  I  consider  the  Gospels  unhistorical,  legend- 
ary documents.  On  the  contrary,  I  think  that  they  are,  for  the  most 
part,  thoroughly  historical ;  only  there  is  "  some  chaff  mingled  with 
the  wheat " — not  enough,  however,  to  justify  the  contention  of  radical 
skeptics  that  the  Gospels  are,  for  the  most  part,  untrustworthy.  I 
hope  this  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  criticism  referred  to. 

Page  294.— An  eminent  Unitarian  minister,  after  reading  this 
book,  wrote  me  that  he  had  no  special  objection  to  my  sketch  of  the 
Perfect  Christ,  but  he  added,  "  Have  we  any  proof  that  this  sketch 
is  a  correct  representation  of  the  historical  Jesus  ?  "  My  reply  was 
substantially  as  follows  :  In  the  Gospels  we  have  the  character  of  a 
Perfect  Man  (Jesus)  given  us ;  either  this  is  a  true  portrait  of  an 
historical  personage,  or  it  is  a  fancy  sketch  of  an  imaginary  being 
conceived  and  drawn  by  the  authors  of  the  Gospels.  If  the  latter 
alternative  be  accepted,  then  we  are  forced  to  believe  that  four  (accord- 
19 


404  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 

• 
ing  to  my  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  several)  different,  unlet- 
tered, ordinary  Jewish  or  Galilean  peasants  have,  apparently  with- 
out any  collusion,  produced  the  portrait  of  a  character  which  far 
surpasses  even    the   masterpieces  of  Shakespeare.      No  character 
which  this  greatest  of    character-painters    has    drawn    equals   in 
beauty,  symmetry,  and  perfection,  the  One  which  the  simple  disci- 
ples of  Jesus  have  given  us.     In  order  to  have  produced  so  perfect 
a  character  from  imagination,  each  one  of  them  would  have  had  to 
be  a  Shakespeare,  and  would  have  had  to  work  for  months,  perhaps 
years  together,  in  its  production.     We  have  no  proof  that  either  of 
these  conditions  was  fulfilled  in  their  case ;  on  the  contrary,  every 
fact  and  reasonable  supposition  points  to  the  opposite  conclusion. 
They  were  simple  Jewish  peasants,  and  have  told  a  simple,  childlike 
story  of  the  Master  and  Teacher  they  loved  and  worshiped.     It  is 
much  easier  to  believe  they  have  told  the  truth ;  have  given  us  a 
picture  of  a  real,  historical  character,  than  it  is  that  they  have  given 
us  a  fancy  sketch.    Nothing  short  of  inspiration  in  the  highest  de- 
gree could  have  enabled  such  men  to  have  drawn  from  their  own 
minds  such  a  character,  but  my  Unitarian  friend  would  probably  be 
the  last  to  admit  that  they  were  so  inspired ;  on  the  contrary,  he 
would  perhaps  agree  with  a  well-known  "  infidel,"  that  they  were 
"  a  sorry  lot."     If  it  be  said  that  the  Gospel  sketch  of  Christ's  char- 
acter itself  shows  that  He  was  not  so  perfect  as  is  here  claimed,  I 
answer   by   referring  the   objector   to   Ullmann's   "  Sinlessness  of 
Jesus,"  where  it  is  shown  that  the  passages  of  Scripture  cited  by 
the  skeptics  in  proof  of  the  imperfection  of  Jesus  can  not  be  ration- 
ally interpreted  so.     Row's  "  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists  "  shows  the 
same  thing. 

It  must  also  be  remembered  that  we  have  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to 
sustain  the  contention  that  Jesus  was  divine  and  sinless,  and  was 
worshiped  as  such  by  all  His  disciples. 

Page  369.— It  may  be  inferred,  from  this  and  other  passages  in 
this  chapter,  that  I  reject  St.  Paul's  view  of  the  resurrection,  and 
hence  I  may  be  accused  of  inconsistency,  since  in  discussing  Christ's 
resurrection  I  accept  St.  Paul's  theory  of  a  "  spiritual  body."  But 
the  inconsistency  is  only  apparent.  I  understand  by  the  apostle's 
words  that  he  means  a  spiritual  individuality  which  is  capable  of 
making  itself  known  to  embodied  spirits,  but  what  that  is,  or  how  it 
can  so  manifest  itself,  I  do  not  know,  any  more  than  I  know  what 
spirit  itself  is,  or  how  one  mind  can  (apparently)  read  the  thoughts 


NOTES  TO  SECOND  EDITION.  405 

of  another.  "  Eternal  form  will  still  divide  the  Eternal  Soul  from  all 
beside."  xVnd  this  individuation  of  one  spirit  from  another  seems 
to  necessarily  involve  the  presence  of  some  sort  of  (ethereal)  organ- 
ism ;  but  manifestly  this  is  a  subject  upon  which  dogmatism  is  out  of 
place.  The  point  I  wish  to  emphasize  is,  that  neither  St.  Paul  nor 
St.  Peter  advocates  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  very 
bodies  that  are  laid  in  the  tomb.  The  nature  of  the  "  spiritual 
body  "  is  not  defined,  although  it  is  said  to  exist ;  and  therefore  we 
may  only  say  what  sort  of  bodies  we  shall  not  have,  and  wait  until 
we  get  the  "  spiritual  body  "  before  we  say  what  it  is.  Rev.  Dr. 
Momerie,  in  his  "  Church  and  Creed,"  pp.  220-232,  and  Rev.  Chauncey 
Giles,  in  a  little  book  on  "  The  Nature  of  Spirit,"  have  some  suggest- 
ive remarks  on  this  subject,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 

Page  373. — Of  course,  it  must  be  understood  that  I  speak  in  the 
above  passages  of  matter  as  it  now  appears  to  us.  The  ultimate  na- 
ture of  matter  is  unknown  and  unknowable  to  science,  and  hence  we 
can  only  speak  of  it  as  it  appears  to  us  in  the  present  order  of  things. 
In. the  first  chapter  of  this  book  I  adopt  the  idealistic  hypothesis  as 
the  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  profound  problem — the  best 
working  hypothesis.  The  reader  is  asked  to  study  that  chapter 
carefully. 


INDEX. 


Abbott,  Dr.  C.  C,  on  the  age  of 
man,  101,  102. 

Abbott,  Rev.  Lyman,  on  the  mod- 
ern clergyman,  396-398. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  its  author- 
ship and  date,  181-186. 

Alford,   Dean,   on    the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  162,  163. 
on  corruptions  of  the  Scriptural 
text,  179. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  on  the  cause  of 
bibliolatry,  232. 

Arius,  his  doctrine  of  the  God- 
head, 266. 

Athanasius,  his  doctrine  of  the 
Godhead,  265. 

Barrett,  Prof.  F  W.,  on  the  influ- 
ence of  mind  upon  dead  mat- 
ter, 228. 

Barrows,  Charles  M.,  on  mental 
healing,  203,  204,  206,  207. 

Baur,  F.  C,  on  the  Book  of  Revela- 
tion, 153. 
his  law  of  development,  182. 

Boscovich,  his  hypothesis  on  the 
nature  of  matter  referred  to, 
26. 


Brooks,  Rev.  Phillips,  on  the  doc- 
trine   of    the    Trinity,     273- 
275. 
Browne,  Bishop  Harold,  on  inspi- 
ration, 243. 
on  the  future  state,  320,  note. 
Bushnell,    Horace,   on  faith-cures, 
204,  208-210. 
on  the  meaning  of  omnipotence, 

346. 
on  moral  character,  361. 
Butler,  Bishop,  on  use  of  the  un- 
derstanding, 138. 
on  immortality,  382. 
on  possible  future   existence  of 
lower  animals,  391. 

Campbell,  McLeod,  on  "The  Na- 
ture of  the  Atonement,"  311, 
note. 
Carlisle.   Bishop    of,    on    German 
philosophers,  198,  199. 
on  virgin-birth  of  Jesus,  222. 
on  bodily  resurrection,  369. 
on  evolution  and  the  fall  of  man, 
135-137. 
Carpenter,  Dr.  W.  B.,  his  plea  for 
a  liberal  religion,  291. 


408 


INDEX. 


Carlyle,  Thomas,  on  hero-worship, 

293,  294. 
Charming,  Dr.  W.  E.,  an  Arian,  266. 
Christlieb,  Dr.,  on  the  doctrine  of 

the  Trinity,  265. 
Clark,  Bishop,  on  functions  of  the 

pulpit,  396. 
Clarke,  James  Freeman,  his  view 

of  the  Godhead,  273,  note. 
on  the  relation  of  the  Christian 

to  other  religions,  400. 
Clement  of  Rome,  his  reference  to 

First  Corinthians,  147. 
his  reference  to  Galatians,  148. 
Coleridge,  his  view  of  inspiration 

referred  to,  248. 

Darwin,  Charles,  on  the  immortality 

of  the  soul,  390. 
Davidson,    Dr.    Samuel,    on      the 

Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  149. 
on  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalo- 

nians,  Philippians,  and  Phile- 
mon, 150,  151. 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 

152,  153. 
on  the  Book  of  Revelation,  153- 

156. 
on  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  163. 
on  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  164. 
on  the  internal  evidence  of  the 

genuineness    and   authenticity 

of  the  Gospels,  167. 
on  the  Fourth  Gospel,  172. 
on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  184. 
Demoniacal  possession,  200. 
Devil,  origin  of  the  idea  of  a,  353- 

357. 

Ely,  Prof.  R.  T.,  his  "  Labor  Move- 
ment "  referred  to,  8,  note. 


Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  quoted  on 
Biblical  chronology,  87. 
on  Gnosticism,  145. 
on  Philo,  146. 
on  the  canon,  159. 
on  leprosy,  202. 
on  inspiration,  235. 
on  sacrifices,  302-304. 
on  a  future  state,  318-321. 
on  the  idea  of  a  devil,  351-357. 
Ewald,  Prof.  Heinrich,  on  Genesis, 
111,  note. 
on  the  miraculous  feeding  of  the 
four  and  the  five  thousand,  213. 

Faith-cures,  203-211. 
Farrar,  Archdeacon,  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  153. 

on  corruptions  of  the  Scriptural 
text,  179,  note. 

on  decadence  of  Biblical  inter- 
pretation, 231,  232. 

on  bibliolatry,  251,  253,  254. 

on  sacrifice  and   penance,   301, 
302. 

on  hell,  313,  314,  323,  324. 

on  the  nature  of  heaven,  332. 

on  retribution,  334,  335. 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  141,  142. 
Fisher,  Dr.  George  P.,  on  the  Gos- 
pels, 166. 

on  the  Fourth  Gospel,  176. 
Fiske,  Prof.  John,  on  development 
of  the  idea  of  God,  129,  130. 

on  primitive  man's  idea  of  world, 
195. 

on  development  of  Jewish  ideas 
of  Deity,  196. 

on  development  of  monotheism, 
261,  262. 

on  spiritual  evolution,  284. 


INDEX. 


409 


Fiske,   Prof.    John,    on    universal  j  Haweis,  Rev.  H.  R.,  on  the  Fourth 


prevalence  of  belief  in  ghosts, 
377. 
on  Darwinian  exaltation  of  man, 

383,  392. 
on   the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
389-391. 
Forces,  the  correlation  of,  35. 
Fremautle,  Canon,  on  God's  imma- 
nence in  Nature,  30. 
on  the  functions  of  the  Church, 
398. 
Froude,  J.  A.,  on  miracles,  197. 

Geikie,   Dr.    C,  on  the  origin   of 
man,  76. 
on  archreologic  periods,  93. 
on    uncertainty    of    archseologic 

facts,  97. 
on  the  locality  of  Eden,  113. 
on  man's  primitive  condition,  121, 

123. 
on  Adam's  creed,  126,  127. 
on  Chaldean  sacrifices,  303. 
Godet,  M.,  on  the  Fourth  Gospel, 

173, 176. 
Gnosticism,  143-145. 
Gospels,  their  origin,  166. 

their  date,  170. 
Goulburn,   Dean,   on  the  celestial 

hierarchy,  318. 
Greg,  W.  R.,  on  the  character  of 
Jesus,  288. 
on  the   immortality  of  the  soul, 
377,  378. 

Hagenbach,  Dr.,  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  263. 

Hamilton,  Sir  William,  his  "  Philos- 
ophy of  the  Unconditioned" 
referred  to,  275. 


Gospel,  176. 
on  the  authorship  of  the  Acts, 

185. 
Hodge,  Dr.  Charles,  on  the  origin 

of  man,  74. 
on  man's  primitive  condition,  116. 
on  the  meaning  of  Genesis  iii, 

117. 

on  the  atonement  of  Christ,  297- 
299. 

on  the  cause  of  physical  death, 

338. 
on  the  relation   of  man  to  the 

lower  animals,  339. 
on  ideas  of  bodily  resurrection, 

367. 
Huxley,  Prof.  T.  H.,  on  argument 

from  design  in  Nature,  24. 
on  materialism,  22,  26. 
on  Berkeleyism,  29. 
on  the  border-line  between  plants 

and  animals,  74. 
on  the  unity  of  the  human  race, 

105. 
on  man's  primitive  condition,  119. 
on  origin  of  the  word  "  agnostic," 

143. 
on  the  authorship  of  the  Gospels, 

177. 
on  the  historic  value  of  the  New 

Testament,  188. 
on  the   possibility   of  miracles, 

192,  193. 
on  inspiration,  247,  24  S. 
on  the  necessity  of  Bible-teach- 

ing,  254,  255. 
on  evolution  and  the  problem  of 

evil,  344. 
Hyatt,  Prof.  Alpheus,  on  the  change 
of  species,  61. 


410 


INDEX. 


Idealism,  definition  of,  27. 
Ingersoll,  Colonel  R.  G.,  his  tribute 
to  Jesus,  15. 
on  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  248, 

249. 
on  the  mystery  of  motive,  359. 
Ircnseus,    his    reference    to    First 
Corinthians,  148. 
his  reference  to  Second  Corinth- 
ians, 148. 
his  reference  to  Galatians,  149. 
his  reference  to  Romans,  149. 
his   attribution    of    the   Fourth 

Gospel  to  St.  John,  171. 
his  attribution  of  the  Acts  to  St. 
Luke,  182. 

John,  Gospel  of,  its  author,  date, 

etc.,  170-177. 
Joly,  M.,  on  the   age  of  man,  90- 
101. 
on  primitive  man's  language,  125. 
on  the    primitive   idea  of  God, 
130,  131. 
Justin    Martyr,   his    reference    to 
First  Corinthians,  147. 
his  alleged  quotation  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Luke,  181. 

Keim,  Dr.  Theodor,  on  apocryphal 

Gospels,  157,  158. 
on  Bible  miracles,  197-202,  211- 

214. 
on  the  virgin  -  birth    of    Jesus, 

220. 
on   the    resurrection    of    Jesus, 

228. 
on  Christ's  view  of  demoniacal 

possession,  250. 
on    God-begotten  persons,   280, 

281. 


Kingsley,    Charles,   on    mind    and 
body,  32. 
on  causes  of  cholera,  etc.,  348, 
349. 

Krauth,  Dr.,  his  edition  of  Berke- 
ley's  "Principles    of    Human 
Knowledge,"  27. 
on  Berkeleyism,  28. 

Kuencn,  Dr.,  his  work  on  the  Hexa- 
teuch  referred  to,  238,  note. 

Lamarck   on  the  causes  of  evolu- 
tion, 44,  45. 
Le   Contc,    Prof.   Joseph,   on   the 

change  of  traditional  beliefs,  7. 
his  definition  of  evolution,  39. 
his  laws  of  evolution,  39-44. 
on  certainty  of  evolution,  48. 
on  uniformitarianism,  51. 
on  the  evolution   of  the  horse, 

53,  54. 
on  the  evolution  of  vertebrates, 

57,  58. 
on  change  of  species,  62-66. 
on  upheaval   of    the   Alps,  91, 

note. 
on  virgin-birth,  217,  note. 
his  Sabellianism,  267,  note. 
on  Divine  persons  of  the  Trinity, 

269. 
on  man's  place  in  Nature,  339. 
on  the  problem  of  evil,  340-343. 
on  the  function  of  the  brain  in 

the  production  of  thought,  379- 

382. 
on  spiritual  evolution,  384-3S8. 
Lecky  on  the  character  of  Jesus, 

.     287,  288. 
Leslie,  Prof.  J.  P.,  on  the  character 

of  Jesus,  289. 
on  worshiping  Jesus,  293. 


INDEX. 


411 


Liddon,   Canon,    his    sermons    re- 
ferred to,  311,  note. 
on  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
377. 
Lubbock,  Sir  John,  on  language, 
125  ^  note. 
on  religious  evolution,  128. 

Maitland,  Rev.  Brownlow,  on  revela- 
tion, 243-246. 

Mansel,  Dean,  his  Bampton  Lect- 
ures referred  to,  269. 

Martensen,  Dr.,  on  the  knowable- 
ness  of  God,  23. 
on  the  nature  of  the  future  state, 
324,  325. 

Materialism,  25,  26. 

Matter,  its  definition,  25. 

Maurice,  F.   D.,   his   "Theological 

Essays  "  referred  to,  311,  note. 

on  meaning  of  "  aionios  "  in  New 

Testament,  326. 
on    the    problem   of    evil,    337, 
338. 

Mcdd,  Canon,  his  "  One  Mediator " 
referred  to,  311,  note. 

Meyers,  Frederick,  on  inspiration, 
242. 

Miiman,  Dean,  on  the  origin  of  Jew- 
ish ideas  of  bodily  resurrection, 
368. 

Mozley,  Canon,  on  miracles,  193. 

Miiller,   Prof.   Max,   on    language, 
125,  note. 
on  inspiration  of  the  Vedas,  236, 

237. 
on  Henothcism,  260. 

Newton,  Rev.  R.  Heber,  on  the 
origin  of  the  Old  Testament 
canon,  232-234. 


Newton,   Rev.   R.   Heber,   on    the 
doctrine  of   the   Trinity,  262, 
263. 
on  the  meaning  of  the  Trinita- 
rian dogma,  271,  272. 

Papias,  his  reference  to   Matthew 

and  Luke,  161,  162. 
Patton,   John    M.,  his  "Death   of 

Death  "  referred  to,  361,  note. 
Pharisees,  their   origin    and   their 

belief   in   bodily  resurrection, 

368. 
Philo,  143,  145,  146. 
Poly  carp,   his   reference    to   First 

Corinthians,  147. 

Rawlinson,  Canon  George,  on   the 

date  of  Noah's  flood,  103. 
on  the  Chaldean  religion,  259. 
on  early  prevalence  of  monothe- 
istic beliefs,  262. 
on  the  Zoroastrian  doctrine  of  the 

resurrection,  367. 
Reimensnyder,     Rev.     J.    B.,    his 

"Doom  Eternal"  quoted,  314, 

315. 
Renan,  Ernest,  on  the  Epistles  to 

the  Thessalonians,  the  Philip- 

pians,  Philemon,  and  Colossi- 

ans,  150,  151. 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 

151,  152. 
on   the   legendary   character   of 

the  Gospels,  167. 
on  the  authorship  of  the  Acts, 

186. 
on  the  historic  value  of  the  New 

Testament,  188,  189. 
on  the  possibility  of  miracles, 

192. 


412 


INDEX. 


Renan,  Ernest,  on  the  time  neces- 
sary for  the  growth  of  myths, 
216. 

on  the  character  of  Jesus,  286. 
Resurrection  of  Jesus,  223-229. 
Robertson,  F.  W.,  on  doubt,  9,  10. 

on  persecution,  72. 

on  popular  Tritheism,  270. 

on  the  doctrine  of   the  Trinity, 
272,  273. 

on  suffering,  as  a  law  of  being, 
343,  344. 

on   relationships    in   the    spirit- 
world,  358. 
Robertson,    Canon,    on    Arianism, 

266. 
Row,  Canon  C.   A.,  on  freedom  of 
the  will,  34,  note. 

on  Genesis  iii,  118,  132,  133. 

on  the   time    necessary   for   the 
growth  of  myths,  216. 

on  inspiration,  242. 

on  superhuman  action  of  Jesus 
in  history,  287,  288. 

on  future  punishment,  325. 

on  the  use  of  reason  in  religious 
studies,  329. 

on  the  meaning  of  the  serpent 
in    the    story   of    Eden,    355, 
note. 
Romanes,  Prof.   G.  J.,  on   physio- 
logical selection,  46. 

on     development    of     language, 
125,  note. 

on  physical  basis  of  mind,  379. 

Sabellius,  his  view  of  the  Godhead, 
207. 

Sadducees,  their  origin  and  their 
rejection  of  the  doctrine  of 
bodily  resurrection,  368. 


Samaritans,  their  origin,  87. 
Semper,    his    "  Animal   Life "    re- 
ferred to,  48. 
Schlegel,   Frederick,  his   definition 

of  idealism,  27. 
Shakespeare  on  the  dissolution  of 

the  body,  363. 
Smith,   Miss   Jennie,   her  remark- 
able cure,  203. 
Smith,    Dr.   William,   on   the  data 

of    Biblical     chronology,    84, 

86. 
Spencer,  Herbert,  on  the  existence 

of  God,  21. 
on  mind  and  matter,  32,  33. 
on  causes  of  evolution,  44,  48. 
on  embryological   argument   for 

evolution,  66,  67. 
on    man's     primitive    condition, 

122,  123,  129. 
on  religious  evolution,  129. 
on  the  origin  of  the  ideas  of  the 

supernatural,  194-196. 
on  inspiration,  241. 
on     the     Abrahamic     covenant, 

261. 
on    God-begotten    persons,   278, 

279. 
on    the    incarnation   of    Christ, 

282. 
on  propitiations  of  deities,  301. 
on  the  future  life  and  world,  316- 

318,  321,  322. 
on    physical     immortality,    342, 

note. 
on  evolution  and  the  problem  of 

evil,  347,  note. 
on   ideas    of    resurrection,    366, 

367. 
on    materialism     and     idealism, 

379. 


INDEX. 


413 


Spencer,  Herbert,  on  the  future  of 
ecclesiastical  institutions,  394, 
395. 

Stewart  and  Tait,  their  "Unseen 
Universe"  quoted,  369-371. 

Stewart,  Prof.  Balfour,  on  mira- 
cles, 229. 

Stanley,  Dean,  quoted,  13,  14. 
on  moral  defects  in   the   Bible, 
240. 

Strauss,  David,  on  the  credulity  of 
the  Church  Fathers,  160. 
on   Justin  Martyr's  "  Memoirs," 

165. 
on  God-begotten    persons,    279, 
280. 

"Symposium  on  the  Atonement," 
by  Archdeacon  Farrar,  etc., 
311,  vote. 

11  Symposium  on  Future  Proba- 
tion "  by  Dr.  Leathes,  etc., 
325,  note. 

"Symposium  on  Immortality,"  by 
Canon  Row,  etc.,  p.  393,  note. 

"Symposium  on  Christianity  and 
Evolution,"  by  Dr.  Matheson, 
etc.,  p.  392. 

"Symposium  on  Non-Biblical  Sys- 
tems of  Religion,"  by  Archdea- 
con Farrar,  etc.,  401,  note. 

Swedenborg  a  Sabellian,  267,  note. 

Talmage,  Rev.  T.  De  Witt,  on  bod- 
ily resurrection,  365,  366. 

Taylor,  Bishop  Jeremy,  on  hell, 
312. 

Thompson,  Dr.  W.  H.,  on  the 
meaning  of  Genesis  iii,  355, 
note. 

Tuke,  Dr.  D.  H.,  on  mental  cure  of 
the  blind,  179. 


Tuke,  Dr.  D.  H.,  on  mental  healing, 

208. 
Tylor,  Dr.  E.  B.,  on  the  age  of  man, 
97,  104. 
on  the  unity  of  the  human  race, 

105. 
on  development  of    civilization, 

120,  121. 
on  primitive  language,  124. 

Ullmann,  Dr.,  his  "Sinlessness  of 

Jesus  "  referred  to,  287. 
Usher,     Archbishop,    his    Biblical 

chronology,  84. 
"  Unseen    Universe,"  its  argument 

against     bodily     resurrection, 

369-371. 

Van  Oosterzee,  Dr.,  on  the  origin 
of  man,  73,  78. 
on  hell -fire,  315. 
Virgin-birth  of  Jesus,  217-225. 

"Wallace,  Alfred  Russel,   on  "ma- 
terialization "  of  spirits,  226. 
Winchell,  Prof.  Alexander,  on  the 
paleontological  evidence  of  evo- 
lution, 52,  53. 

on  connecting  links,  54,  55. 

on  the  morphological  evidence  of 
evolution,  56,  57. 

on  change  of  species,  60. 

on  the  embryological  evidence  of 
evolution,  62. 

his  summary  of  the  evidences  of 
evolution,  67,  68. 

on  Biblical  chronology,  88. 

on  Preadamitism,  106-111. 

on   primitive  man's    home,  114, 
115. 

on    primitive    man's     condition, 
122-124. 


414 


INDEX. 


Whitney,  Prof.  W.  D.,  on  language, 

124. 
White,  Dr.   A.   D.,  on  demoniacal 

possession,  200,  note. 


Young,   Dr.,  his   "Christ  of  His- 
tory  "  referred  to,  28*7. 

Zeller,  Dr.,  on   the  authorship  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  185. 


THE    END. 


